Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself, etc...
But it uses the same way justify our beliefs about something. Our beliefs are justified by our intuition of the physical world. We experience the physical world by our senses and we have direct evidence that our physical world is the way it is. So the only thing that justified our belief is our intuition of it. The way we experience the physical world and the way we see how it works is a true representation of it.
But thats just relative morality with a twist of self rightousness and dogmatism thrown in. Thats what happens within a subjective system where we cannot say what is right and wrong objectively. Whoever has the most power in a subjective system gets to dictate morality.
But the fact that you speak of what "Disicipline is and is not" points to there needing to be an objective basis to determine whats is and is not.
God Bless you too.
Thats a logical fallacy to dismiss evidence based on its source. Kids education needs to be accurate especially in science. So here is a non kid link that says the same thing.
How does it agree with you.
I gave support with how all the different domains and sciences makes human "Life" valuable. They give scientific support for this and also make human "Life" valuable in a way that doesnt allow for subjective changes.
It does considering human "Life" was given value and put into laws, Rights, treaties and given by the social sciences which is also used as the basis for devaluing human life.
But just because they think otherwise doesn't mean they are right or that morality is subjective.
Thats crazy. If we cannot tell them they are objectively wrong then its not wrong really to torture children.
I know its about pro-choice "MY right to do what I want with MY body". But that is not the fundelemntal moral issue is it. Its about whether abortion takes a human life. Otherwise women would not have to justify that its my body. I mean the same logic applied to other situations doesn't stand up as a reason.
My sister used a new type of fertilizer on her tomato plants a few years back and she got low tomato yields that year. Her logic and reasoning was that this was due to the new type of fertilizer she used and refuse to use it since. There was no scientific validity involved, no checking to see if the low yield was due to other factors, she just assumed it was due to the fertilizer. This was her logic and reasoning.
The exact moment a sperm and egg combination becomes human is not a scientific issue, it is a subjective issue; there is equal knowledge of biology on both sides of the abortion debate; this disagreement is not based on ignorance. This idea that if everybody knew what you knew, they would agree with you on all moral issues is absurd.
Europeans enslaved other Europeans long before they enslaved black people. Slavery was not based on a belief that black people were less than human.
And that is a Fallacy of misrepresenting what I said. I have not said intuition is some knee jerk reaction. Quite the opposite. Its the end result of analytic thinking about moral experiences and how they pan out in real life. That gives us an instant recognition of what is morlaly right and wrong.
Intuition is the recognition that something is morlaly wrong. A reaction like a feeling is not intuition. The intuition of an abusive parent would be come in afterwards that they have just done something wrong in abusing the child. The intuition would come into play in a situation where that abusive parent said that it is morally OK to abuse a child that we would think that is a counter intuitive thing to do.
I just exaplined that above. Feelings are arbitrary where as our intuition is the end result of analytic thinking. But as I have also said. We can check our intuitions with reasoning. What is the best way to behave morally in that situation. There is evidence abuse harms kids physically and psychologically.
Orel: How do we know that something is really wrong?
Show me some reasoning then. Show me the reason that life ought to be valued. You claim it's a moral truth, so prove it.
Your sister just assumed without testing. If it was reasoned and logical then she would have investigated things. Tried to find out why there was a low yeild. Was it this action or that action that caused this or the product itself.
Its not about fertization but whether a 6 week or 12 week fetus is a human life. So tell me say science found that the Fetus was a human life at 6 weeks would that make a difference to the issue.
But I am using that example as its always held up as being wrong. If it was wrong then it was more than just a subjective change like they didnt like doing it anymore. It was a moral truth that this type of slavey was wrong.
No you are making a logical fallacy a Strawman. I never said that this is how intuition works. That is what you think intution is and its wrong. Our moral intuition according to the experts is self evident and thats different to circular reasoning.
All domains in life say that life is of value whethr it be the US Declaration, most countries UN treaties and laws, UN Human Rights, Evolution, Religion and the social sciences such as psychology. So if all these areas say that life is valuable then we are pretty safe is saying human "Life" is valuable. Thats the reasoning. Humans reason themselves that life is valuable.
That is not our lived moral experience. Our lived moral experience our intuition is that "Life" is valuable. Suicide does treat life as valuable.
You defined it as such. No strawman.
No, what we intuit is not self evident. As you said:
You can't be wrong about self-evident things. Stop declaring intuition is self evident.
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. You claim morality is objective, you support your claim. There are zero, zilch, nada, none, nil excuses for shifting the burden of proof.
It is not your lived moral experience. It is the lived moral experience of those who commit suicide. You have got to stop projecting.
Then you can show me where I said intuition is a knee jerk reaction.
Yes and you are quote mining me. Look at what was said just after that sentence. I said we could be wrong as a rhetorical question. I qualified it be saying "But we would have to have a reasoned arguement as to why our intution was wrong and until that defeater comes we are justified to believe our intuition is a correct indication of our morals.
Then how do you explain why philosophers think intuition is good evidence for our ethics and morals.
I think I already have.
How do you know they are not suffering from a mental health issue and this is distorting things.
It is supported by the fact that humans make it an objective fact and hold that truth up independent of humans. Thats what objective is "An independnet fact beyond human subjective thinking".
It's instant and without conscious deliberation. That's a knee-jerk reaction.
Things are self evident when the alternative is nonsense. The law of non-contradiction is self evident. We can't comprehend what it would mean for it to not be true. Our intuitions can be false and it wouldn't be nonsense. As you've said, some folks hold beliefs contrary to your personal intuitions, so it can't be nonsense or the belief would be impossible to hold.
I'll grant that intuition is an okay starting place for a hypothesis. That's it. You seem to think it's absolute proof. If it was, then the Sun goes round the Earth doesn't it?
No, I'm still waiting to see an actual argument.
Prove that it's distorted and stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
No. Some humans do some humans don't. Prove that humans such as yourself are correct. You are not all humans.
I wasn't asking what you thought Intuition is. I am asking you to show me where I said Intuition is a knee jerk reaction.
Our moral intuition works like this. If we see a women being assaulted or someone stealing an old ladies handbag our intuition tells us that something is morally wrong. So if someone said its morally OK to assault women and steal old ladies handbags that would be counter-intuitive. In other words it is like a common-sense recognition or right and wrong. So being counter intuitive is nonsense.
I bnever said that. I said its not based on some knee jerk reaction but processed experience of morality. Its like someone who is experienced in art can recognize the brush strokes and format of a painting instantly. They can then take a closer look to see finer detail of the artwork and it confirms the intitial sense that it was a great work of art. The more moral experience we have the better we get at our moral intuition.
OK so I have used a couple. The main one is this. The video is only 14 minutes but explains in detail and addresses the objections.
Ok so here is a paper showing how suicidal thinking is irrational
It doesnt matter and thats not the point. The point is those who don't agree are said to be objectively wrong by most people. Morality is about right or wrong so those who disagree are simply wrong.
But its not just myself. Its a common core moral that human"life" is valuable. Its proven to be a fact by the way everyone makes it a fact beyond subjective human thinking. They say that those who disagree are simply wrong and mistaken in their moral position.
You keep repeating the same false statements over and over and over again. Not everyone. Do you understand that?
I understand that, not everyone agrees. But that, s a logical fallacy to then follow that because "not everyone agrees" that there is no moral "Truth" at all.
