ArthurWilborn said:Four terms fallacy means that you're trying to make an argument based on a term that has more then one definition and you use more then one definition while pretending that you're using the same definition. There doesn't need to be literally four terms any more then there needs to be literal Scotsmen or Texans. :roll:
Actually, no. What you just implied was equivocation. Purposefully using one word several times but with a different meaning each time. That is something he did not do. Equivocation can create a four term fallacy if the meaning of a word changes in each premise of someone's argument, but there really does need to be more than 3 terms for you to call it such -- either as a result of equivocation or incorrect grammar. Still, I see no sign that he did that. Just because you can go and look up different terms for his words, doesn't mean that he is guilty of pulling the ol' switch-a-roo himself.
At any rate it seems you don't agree with his original point because you seem to contend that morals aren't an issue of facts. However, as I've explained, I hardly see a problem with the premise that factually wrong can be morally wrong because I think it would be better to introduce as many facts as possible into moral thought.
Conflation means confusing two terms. ur duin it wrng.
You're right, I meant "confusing". Now, would you like to address the point?
Go ahead, try. Your example: My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is my favorite cartoon of this year. Prove that statement objectively false.
This example does not apply in the context of the discussion. We're talking ethical opinions.This is an opinion that has no foreseeable bearing on questions of ethics. Opinions of a cartoon show aimed at little girls has negligible consequences on society. Whereas, opinions of civil rights have profound and much more immediate consequences.
Or try a moral example: Beets are evil. They are a dark root vegetable and therefore are unclean. Prove this objectively false.
Beets are a good source of vitamins and minerals. Thus they are a positive addition to the human diet. Dark root veggies do not lead to negative side effects when consumed normally. This is verifiable by dieticians and nutritionists. Ta-da! Anyway, Richard is right in that beets aren't moral actors. However we do have a way of attributing "good" or "bad" qualities to things like natural disasters... I don't really feel like getting into it all. But it would be better phrased by asking if the act of eating beets was morally wrong or right.