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 extent the concept to beings of any degree of sentience. If they somehow know they want something, then they value. So I cant say its limited to humans. But this is kind of beside the point.Value is a human concept so value other than to people is meaningless.
No, I didn't. You imagined that. Go back and read my post again.He claims my link shows that 25% of children cannot know moral right and wrong and I disagree.
I don't know about that. It seems all ethical theories make some things intrinsically valuable so its a fundelmental part of ethics.
I think the debate is still open as to whether there are values beyond human subjective thinking. Nature seems to hold value in itself. We may come to appreciate or recognise that value. But to do that we must have the ability to value things and value them in degrees. So is this a case of part humans doing the valuing in their subjective way and part recognition of something of value outside humans innate in nature for example.
If we look at nature and see water sustaining life, creatures with mechanism that allow them do all sorts of incredible things and ecosystems that work better than anything humans can make we would have to see some value in that in itself and not because some persons subjective view (which may be wrong) thinks its valuable. Logic tells us there more value in it than just what we think.
Ifn God made everything and declared it good its not for usYes which means not everything has intrinsic value. We have to work out what has that value and what doesnt. The thing with food tastes is that it is subjective. One person may like chocolate and others don't for subjective reasons which can skew peoples thinking about values.
Is it of real value independnt of peoples preferences, feelings ect or is this percieved value clouded by personal experiences. Whereas something like H2o can be seen as valuable in itself. Subjective feelings or preferences cannot devalue it because its value is seen in nature.
Chocolate is the end product of other things. From what I understand the beans of cocoa plant taste horrible and bitter. So the chocolate we consume has been conccoted to cater to the market based on peoples desires and pleasure. So the value has more or less been created by marketers and is more like an a instrumental value.
Then I play the "God made it good but then later Satan messed it up" card.Ifn God made everything and declared it good its not for us
to say it aint. As i point out to those who, say, hate spiders or snakes.
In what way are we not free?That's the downside to life. The One that chose to create is also the One that may choose to take away. We may have a free will, but we are not free.
To be honest not in great detail. I have vague ideas about the details of how Kantian ethics works> I know its rule/duty based and peoples intentions and will is important for determining right and wrong actions. I think reasoning is also important as it can help determine some universal truths based on rationality. But this is something generated by humans capacity to be rational.Uhu, but have you read Kant?
You could just write ”no”.To be honest not in great detail. I have vague ideas about the details of how Kantian ethics works> I know its rule/duty based and peoples intentions and will is important for determining right and wrong actions. I think reasoning is also important as it can help determine some universal truths based on rationality. But this is something generated by humans capacity to be rational.
Though it has a sort of strict rule based approach where you cannot lie even to save people because lying is a law that cannot be broken there is some room for taking situations into consideration. LIke if reasoning determined a greater moral law would be broken this can be accommodated. This is a sort of escape clause I think for the strict rule based ethics.
Though it seems like absolute morality in some ways its similar to objective morality because it can hold a core set of moral laws as being strict to follow like "Don't Kill or Lie" but it it allows for some scope to consider consequences with a framework of "Imperfect duties". So in some ways its similar to objective morality because it holds a core set of moral truths but circumstances can be considered to reason the moral truth.
Well you can make anythink look a certain way that you want it to look by cutting and pasting. Its another word for quote mining. If you take the entire sentence (the rest you cut out highlighted) then it takes on a diferent contextThere you go, now you're proving my point for me. These two sentences cannot both be true.
Didnt I sort of in saying "not really". I didnt want to say no as I believe I know more than the average person. I don't mind someone pointing me in the right direction for knowledge on a subject.You could just write ”no”.
Yes I will, I will not them as someone to research. I have already started on Nietzsche which I am finding interesting. I have come across the other names as well.[/QUOTE]You really should, and Hegel, Shopenhauer and Nietzsche too.
Ok just checked and it seems you havnt addressed my post refuting your claim. So I guess it would be better you addressed that than me have top repeat everything. Or if you can explain what you mean that would help. I have re-read it but still come to a similar conclusion logically. Heres the post #522No, I didn't. You imagined that. Go back and read my post again.
If you lived in Australia you would have good reason to dislike spiders and snakes. We have 20 of the 25 most venomous snakes in the world and we have some of the most deadlest spiders as well. lol.Ifn God made everything and declared it good its not for us
to say it aint. As i point out to those who, say, hate spiders or snakes.
Didnt I sort of in saying "not really". I didnt want to say no as I believe I know more than the average person. I don't mind someone pointing me in the right direction for knowledge on a subject.
The point is you seem to be pushing for a higher criteria for anyone who opposes you than those on your side. I don't see anyone else being scrutinized about what they know and don't know about ethics. I could safely say that there will not be many people on this thread with an extensive teritiary qualification of ethics.
Yes I will, I will not them as someone to research. I have already started on Nietzsche which I am finding interesting. I have come across the other names as well.
There's no different context. Either all humans have a conscience, or not all humans have a conscience. What the cause of a lack of conscience is doesn't matter.Well you can make anythink look a certain way that you want it to look by cutting and pasting. Its another word for quote mining. If you take the entire sentence (the rest you cut out highlighted) then it takes on a diferent context
We all have a conscience. Only those without a conscience and have some mental disorder like a sociopath cannot know right from wrong.
Bologna. We've been going at this point where you've been insisting "All humans know" for days. Now you're backpedaling and blaming me for misunderstanding. You had numerous opportunities to change "all" to "most" if that's what you meant.But heres a tip, if you think I have made such a claim rather than assume that I am making contradictory statements clarify with me. Ask me if that is what I meant.
No, let's go back to the claim I addressed:Ok just checked and it seems you havnt addressed my post refuting your claim. So I guess it would be better you addressed that than me have top repeat everything. Or if you can explain what you mean that would help. I have re-read it but still come to a similar conclusion logically. Heres the post #522
As evidence for these ways of thinking and behaviors that are common to all humans you present a study where 75% of the participants acted one way, and 25% of the participants did not. Is 75% the same as 100%? No. You have yet to provide evidence that there are ways of thinking or behaviors that are common to all humans.Through the sciences we can get to know some basic common thinking and bahviours common to all humans.
But I know about moral realism as this has been my mainarea of study fro years.No, but as you post with confidence about things you obvioulsy have no background or education in its prudent to point this out.
My assertion that anyone who disagrees is irrational is based on fact and logic. Think about it for a sec. If someone says that torturing children is morally good would we think they are irrational.This, among other things, makes your assertion that anyone who disagrees with your stance on moral philosophy to be irrational hilarious.
Yeah I'm getting through some. Its a big topic.There are a lot of reading to do if you want to get an even basic grip of the subject, (Kirkegaard, Spinoza among others).
There are several good lectures readily available on youtube from real academia (not slanted articles like the ones that you post).
But I know about moral realism as this has been my mainarea of study fro years.
My assertion that anyone who disagreesis irrational is based on fact and logic. THink about it for a sec. If someone says that torturing children is morally good would we think they are irrational. Well under a subjectiuve moral system a the moral views that torturing an innocent child for fun and being kind to a child moral no moral difference. To me thats irrational. Subjective morality cannot be lived out and applied.
Yeah I'm getting through some. Its a big topic.
But your creating a strawman. My original point was that there are certain things about humans we all know that they pocess naturally like they have a conscence. Its because of this we can make confident claims about what humans pocess. So my claim that all humans know about morality is supported by the science that shows that as a natural ability.There's no different context. Either all humans have a conscience, or not all humans have a conscience. What the cause of a lack of conscience is doesn't matter.
Yes I may have been sloppy with my explanation as I assumed that those who have damage to their conscioence cannot know. Thats obvious. So I will clarify that all people who still have a working conscience know the core moral truths.Bologna. We've been going at this point where you've been insisting "All humans know" for days. Now you're backpedaling and blaming me for misunderstanding. You had numerous opportunities to change "all" to "most" if that's what you meant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?