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.
I think it depends on yours and/or others definitions of terms, and where one is "coming from", or "came from", etc...?
Reason and logic does not require all of that. The simple act of assuming is based on reasoning and logic.
How are you defining “human life”? When the sperm goes looking for an egg, that life is from a human; isn’t that human life? It may not be a person, but it is human life.
You said slavery was discovered to be wrong due to increased knowledge that black people were not inferior to white people. This is proven wrong due to the fact that blacks enslaved blacks, whites and enslaved whites long before the transatlantic slave trade started. We call slavery wrong today because our subjective views on the issue changed; not due to increased knowledge of equality between races.
You probably missed the other post. I was saying that our intuition is from analytic thinking about our moral experiences and that we can reason certain behaviours are more moral than others. We reason that human "Life"is of value and we show this by the laws, rights we implement and the sciences that show human life is of value. So we have a basis for measuring what is morally right and wrong. So therefore in knowing this I asked if we can claim that anyone who disagrees with this is just objectively wrong.
So what are you basing this on, your opinion or expert opinion.
But is that objectively true. See how some things do come down to a truth but we cannot verify it in the same way we would say physical sciences. But nevertheless are still truths/facts. Like there needs to be a right and wrong answer to moral issues because its getting at something right and wrong.
God Bless
You have got it all back the front. We make assumptions and then assess whether they are supported by reasoning and logic. An assumption is like a guess based on best likely case. But it is only preliminary until we can support it.
I am determining human life as we understand a sentient being is.
Well obviously the people who thought certain other people were slaves was because of some reason that made them different, alien, less deserved, the other,, penalty or owed debts. They wouldnt just enslave innocent people of their own for no good reason.
So why would we change our subjective view of morality if there is not progression of morality from worse to better under a subjective morality. Disagreement about the morality of slavery is incoherent under subjectivity because there is no objective basis to measure morality.
Sorry just check post 392 and it looks like I just missed it completely. But in reading it I can say we can agree about deductive logical reasoning. We just have a different positiojn about Intuition. Thats because we have a different position on morality. I am a moral realist so Intuition is part of my position.
Good, then stop saying everyone agrees.
One group treats it as a fact that life is valuable.
The huge majority of humans who value life arent "right" to do so. They just do. Its the normal condition of being human (or even just being alive typically). And being the vast majority, their will prevails against the others in matters of moral-making and law and so on.
Reason and logic is not something you are always going to think about when you use it, it's just a part of the decision making process; something you do without think about it.
A lot of "Pro-lifers will disagree with you. A sentient being is one who is aware of his surroundings and able to react to them, which requires brain function at a level that does not exist at conception. many pro-lifers believe life begins at conception. However if there were scientific evidence that a 6 week old fetus had such brain function, I doubt those Pro-lifers would change their position from conception to 6 weeks as when life begins.
My point was our change of opinion concerning slavery had nothing do do with increased knowledge of various races
Yep. You and I agree. But bear in mind, the fella I'm talking to thinks that there are "correct" and "incorrect" choices when it comes to values.
Then its not reason and logic. REason and logic are tools that need to be specifically applied to critical thinking which requires a dicipline in keeping to a specific type of thinking as opposed to subjective thinking.
But the same logic can be applied to someone on a life support machine or who is suffering a mental disorder. We still regard them as human life.
It doesnt matter at what stage we say human life applies. At this point no stage applies until 20 plus weeks and ion some states you can abort a full term baby. So obviously people are making determinations when that cut off point is. Some say conception, some say full term and everything ion between.
Then why did we stop slavery.
I actually said everyone knows the moral truths and thats different to agreeing with them.
yes but when it comes to the value of human life and applying it the group that thinks human life is not valuable are said to be objectivel wrong.
BUt its more than just acting that way. The way of acting morally is enforced onto others like its the truth. So its more than acting, its also a truth claim that can only be right or wrong. By living that way (objectively) they are saying its the right way to live.
Thats easy. There is objective evidence that people who are suicidal think irrationally. So anything they think is truth/fact cannot be taken as fact/truth.[/quote]
I know that's what you're claiming, I'm asking you to prove it.
Okay, and the person who takes their own life is making their own truth claim that life ought not be valued. You claim they're wrong, so prove it.
Everyone thinks irrationally about some things some of the time. You don't honestly think you're 100% rational 100% of the time, do you? You're trying to commit the fallacy of Poisoning the Well.
The evdience is self supporting. There can only by a right and wrong answer and humans have decided that the right one is that human life has value. It is evdienced by the way it is used. The same as if weknow that a person loved someone by the way they behave. You cannot verify what love itself is but you can make deetrminations from the behaviour. Its not just about behaving the same way but how people behave the same way as objective morals.
I have already done this. The science proves that the persons personal truth was irrational. These people usually end up in psych wards. They are not a good example of how to live as a human.
I never said I was rational 100% of the time. Just because people may think irrationally sometimes doesnt mean they are not capable of being rational when needed. Morality is a situation where we need to be rational.
There are many, go ask a psychologists or psychiatrists or even a doctor whether life is of value. The science supports life being valuable. Our laws, ethical codes and treaties with the UN all make life valuable. So if these mainstream domains treat life as valuable and expert qualified opinion states life is valuable what more do you need.
Then show me. Present an argument that concludes "We ought to value life". What are the premises?
As you can see from the below definition, critical thinking is not required when employing reason and/or logic
True! Which is why I think your definition that requires the person to be sentient in order to be considered a person; a poor requirement. However that is your definition I ain’t arguing with cha, just pointing out not everybody is gonna agree with you.
Not subjectively based on their personal opinion? Then why does these basis differ from person to person?
As I said before; those in power make the rules. In the case of slavery, those who were against slavery became more powerful than those who were for it. (not to mention the fact that the Industrial Revolution and technology of that time began to make slavery obsolete)
And c and d support the need for usings reasoning and logic to determine facts and not subjective thinking.
Thats only if you think the mentally ill or people on life support don't have any consciousness. However that is your definition I ain’t arguing with cha, just pointing out not everybody is gonna agree with you. [/quote] Its not my definition. ITs the official and widely accepted definition.
I think I have been through this with you before. Just because people differ on their views about something objective doesn't mean there is not objective truth. It may be people are biased, have self interest, have beliefs and these influence the way people see things. So we cannot rely on subjective thinking to determine the facts/truth.
But under a subjective moral system those outside power trying to change things should not have to protest and push slavery supporters out of the way because having an opposing view is not wrong.
True! But A and B is clear that it is not necessary. Don’t get me wrong, often reason and logic does involve critical thinking, my point is that it is not a requirement.
So it is your claim that the official definition of personhood/human life begins when a being becomes sentient? Can you provide an outside source to confirm this claim?
I disagree! That which is objective is not up for debate. If you disagree, provide an example of something based on objective facts (not related to morality) that is up for debate.
Your problem is you seem to think people will behave differently under subjective morality vs objective morality; they would not. By your own definition, subjective is about how people perceive things, objective is beyond how people perceive things. If we only look at how people react to what they perceive, it will be the same under subjective as it would be under objective morality.
Actually it makes perfect sense because if morality were objective, it would never change because people would have figured it out by now. The fact that it is constantly changing, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse; proves subjective morality.
