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 would disagree and say just because somethings objective doesn’t mean it has to be correct. The fact that someone tells a lie doesn’t mean the lie is correct. So a request can be objective without being correct.
The word "valid" means that IF it were true, it would support your argument. You also have to prove it's actually true.
"I don't want you to" is not a valid reason any more than "It will be shorter". You're just describing something else.
Because you believe "One shouldn't cause harm" to be true. Can you justify that belief?
The only way it is wrong to bother someone is IF it's wrong to cause harm. So now you have to prove it's wrong to cause harm.
My claim isn't a moral position. A moral position is a claim about how one should behave.
And again you make the same mistake.
What is objectively correct is that a lie was told. The objectivity of that has no bearing at all on the truthfulness of the claim that was made. The lie existing is not the same thing as what the lie said.
If you are going to continue to make such basic mistakes, then it will be hard to have a meaningful discussion about this with you.
No, they are true statements, but they are not valid reasons. Just because they're true doesn't mean that your conclusion is true. Just because hair will be shorter if you cut it, doesn't prove that you shouldn't cut hair.Well, its not hard to prove hair gets shorter when cut, or that Jimmy likes Billy's hair longer. So according to what you just said, we should agree these are valid reasons.
If it's true that "I don't want you to" and it's true that "It will be shorter", then these are valid reasons according to your own words above, and I quote "The word "valid" means that IF it were true".
Yes, it would be justified by the valid fact that someone whom you intend to harm, does not want to be harmed.
Again, not a valid reason. Go back and reread my post where I broke everything down into formal logic.I did prove that by acknowledging the fact that someone does not want to be harmed.
No, it doesn't. "2+2=5" is wrong and morality has nothing to do with it. "The Earth is flat" is wrong and morality has nothing to do with it.Morality has to do with all right and wrong, including arguments. Look it up.
No, they are true statements, but they are not valid reasons. Just because they're true doesn't mean that your conclusion is true. Just because hair will be shorter if you cut it, doesn't prove that you shouldn't cut hair.
No, it doesn't. "2+2=5" is wrong and morality has nothing to do with it. "The Earth is flat" is wrong and morality has nothing to do with it.
only divine love is goodAre acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?
Nope. See my simple test for making a valid argument in my previous reply.It would prove that you shouldn’t cut hair if you don’t want it to be shorter.
Allow me to parse that for you:I’m going by this definition:
mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/
noun
It clearly says “right and wrong” in there and I presume that to mean anything that can be right and wrong.
- principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Correct. It's important to note that I wouldn't say they're morally right for doing it either.Besides, by your view, someone could be completely convinced that their illogical argument is right and be convincing others it’s right, but you wouldn’t say they’re morally wrong for doing that?
Nope. See my simple test for making a valid argument in my previous reply.
Allow me to parse that for you:
Principles concerning the distinction between right behavior and wrong behavior, or good behavior and bad behavior.
No, morality is not concerned with math problems.
Correct. It's important to note that I wouldn't say they're morally right for doing it either.
Because "want" and "should" are completely different propositions. They don't mean the same thing. The same way we can't prove that I "will" do something simply because I "can" do something. The words "will" and "can" are completely different propositions.I agree that a true statement doesn’t necessarily make your conclusion true, but if it’s true that you want long hair, then the conclusion follows that you shouldn’t cut it. I don’t understand why you think that logic is invalid.
Okay, then you see how my argument isn't self defeating because it isn't a moral position.I also agree that morality isn’t concerned with math problems
This is because what is around us, requests our respect. Degrees of inference are something we should each be doing all the time, on every matter.Then show me something which is completely subjective and yet at the same time completely objective.
... They will eventually figure out again the average distance between the Earth and the sun, and it will be the same value that we have today.
This will not happen with morality.
- or in some cases do have real such reason for examination and whatever action singly or jointly, as the case may variously be, which doesn't conflict with those cases you have in mind where we don't.we have no real reason to believe are true
Because "want" and "should" are completely different propositions. They don't mean the same thing. The same way we can't prove that I "will" do something simply because I "can" do something. The words "will" and "can" are completely different propositions.
Seriously, go back and reread my post about how to prove these things formally. We speak about things differently in casual conversation, and we fill in gaps without explicitly stating them. But when we write it out formally we can see that those hidden assumptions need to be stated for our arguments to be valid. And it's those hidden assumptions that we have no real reason to believe are true.
Okay, then you see how my argument isn't self defeating because it isn't a moral position.
You can't formulate a valid argument with a "will" conclusion by using only "can" premises.But you can prove that you "will" do something, simply by doing it. Just because "will" is a different proposition than "can" doesn't mean it's not provable. Same with "should". Sorry, you're not making much sense to me and maybe that's ok.
No, I thought you understood morality is about behavior. My argument isn't about the behavior itself, so it isn't a moral position.You're saying your argument is mathematical? How so?
only divine love is good
You can't formulate a valid argument with a "will" conclusion by using only "can" premises.
You can't formulate a valid argument with a "should" conclusion by using only "want" premises.
Do you get why those two statements are both true for the same reason? You're jumping around too much. Just stick to the one point at a time, please.
No, I thought you understood morality is about behavior. My argument isn't about the behavior itself, so it isn't a moral position.
No, that's not what it means for something to be valid. A reason is valid if it leads to a conclusion. If the conclusion must be true whenever the reason is true, then the reason is valid. You can give a reason that is both false and valid. Your argument works when the reason is both valid and true. So do you see how the following statements are both true for the same reason?But earlier we established that all somethings needs to be valid is to be true and provable
No, that's not what it means for something to be valid. A reason is valid if it leads to a conclusion. If the conclusion must be true whenever the reason is true, then the reason is valid. You can give a reason that is both false and valid. Your argument works when the reason is both valid and true. So do you see how the following statements are both true for the same reason?
You can't formulate a valid argument with a "will" conclusion by using only "can" premises.
You can't formulate a valid argument with a "should" conclusion by using only "want" premises.
This is the basics of logic. This still isn't even the topic of morality.Nope. Honestly, this sounds like nonsense to me. Are you a moral nihilist?
I agree with this, we are saying the same thing, just differently.
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?