- May 22, 2015
- 7,379
- 2,640
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
You mean because it destroys human life, right? You always state that human life is intrinsically valuable. How come?
Upvote
0
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.
You mean because it destroys human life, right? You always state that human life is intrinsically valuable. How come?By the fact rape destroys life.
lol how can I put the blame on someone else when I said "I misunderstood your post" and not someone else.But still you didnt answer the post.
In fact disagreement over moral issues implies someone is right and someone is wrong and that there is a right answer and not a subjective view or opinion.
Do you mean to say you disagree. How dare you. The Godfather is the ultimate movie. The way Brando pulls off that accent like hes mumbling with a broken jaw is just great acting.Not thinking the Godfather is the greatest movie of all time is absurd!
And consequences are relevant to morality.Argument from Consequences fallacy again.
No it doesnt equate to morality. Disliking certain foods does not have the same importance as moral issues. You can't be ostrasized by liking chocolate. People don't stop the perpetrator or want justice like they do if someone dislikes chocolate. You can for rape.And I never said it equates to food tastes, but it's analogous.
Yes they do they are all the subjective states of the person. They all have the same logic as described above where they don't matter as much as a moral issue like rape and in the same way.It's also analogous to taste in movies, art, clothing, etc. And none of those things equate to each other either.
I don't understand. If the first sentence is OK then that explains I wasn't blaming anyone else but myself. Gee now I can't even take the blame.Everything bu the first sentence is passing the blame.
Oh, I agree. The Godfather is the greatest movie of all time as a matter of objective fact.Do you mean to say you disagree. How dare you. The Godfather is the ultimate movie. The way Brando pulls off that accent like hes mumbling with a broken jaw is just great acting.
The argument from consequences fallacy is when you feel good or bad about the consequences. It isn't the same as if your feeling good or bad are the consequences. Consider this statement:And consequences are relevant to morality.
Appeal to emotion fallacy. How much something matters to us is how much we care: emotion. How important something is to us is how much we care: emotion. See? You can't separate your reasoning from your feelings. Objective morality is one big Appeal to Emotion fallacy.No it doesnt equate to morality. Disliking certain foods does not have the same importance as moral issues. You can't be ostrasized by liking chocolate. People don't stop the perpetrator or want justice like they do if someone dislikes chocolate. You can for rape. Yes they do they are all the subjective states of the person. They all have the same logic as described above where they don't matter as much as a moral issue like rape and in the same way.
I think you are simplifying things. Morality is more than an appeal to emtion. Emotion is certainly part of our experience of morality but not the entire picture.Oh, I agree. The Godfather is the greatest movie of all time as a matter of objective fact.
The argument from consequences fallacy is when you feel good or bad about the consequences. It isn't the same as if your feeling good or bad are the consequences. Consider this statement:
If morality was objective, I'd feel bad. Therefore morality isn't objective.
Is that argument valid? No? Then yours isn't either.
Appeal to emotion fallacy. How much something matters to us is how much we care: emotion. How important something is to us is how much we care: emotion. See? You can't separate your reasoning from your feelings. Objective morality is one big Appeal to Emotion fallacy.
Because it has value in and of itself beyond what individuals or cultures subjectively think.You mean because it destroys human life, right? You always state that human life is intrinsically valuable. How come?
I know that's your claim. But you keep abandoning any kind of argument that attempts to prove its anything more than emotion.I think you are simplifying things. Morality is more than an appeal to emtion. Emotion is certainly part of our experience of morality but not the entire picture.
Eh, that's not what I was getting at. Let me rephrase. Why aren't other forms of life intrinsically valuable?Because it has value in and of itself beyond what individuals or cultures subjectively think.
I have given a couple of arguements that have not been defeated. ieI know that's your claim. But you keep abandoning any kind of argument that attempts to prove its anything more than emotion.
Animals have intrinsic value, that their existence has value in and of itself. But from that intrinsic value comes different qualities that we are obligated to uphold. Humans have the most value because they are conscious moral beings. Peter Singer from memory argues for the Rights of animals.Eh, that's not what I was getting at. Let me rephrase. Why aren't other forms of life intrinsically valuable?
I debunked this in a post you ignored. Post 2416But as I said you cannot know whether I am saying something false if there is no obligation for us to be Honest.
Prove it. Let's say moral realism is false, but I hate rape and I would very strongly prefer that no one ever rapes anyone else. How would I act differently?1) If moral Realism is false, people would not live like moral facts exist.
But it's okay to kill animals. Why is it okay to make there be less of something that is intrinsically valuable? Anything that is intrinsically valuable we ought to preserve and protect because we ought to value it.Animals have intrinsic value, that their existence has value in and of itself. But from that intrinsic value comes different qualities that we are obligated to uphold. Humans have the most value because they are conscious moral beings.
Ok so lets use an example in our debate we are having as I know you have pointed out a few times that I have made a logical fallacy or may have even misrepresented your arguement. So if I did do either or both of these things how would you tell I said something false to score brownie points.I compare your statement to reality. Honesty requires comparing what you say to what you believe, not what is true.
Let's say you have an apple tree you want to sell to me. You believe it only has fifty apples, so you tell me that it actually has one hundred apples to entice me to buy. If the tree actually has one hundred apples, and your belief was wrong, you still lied.
Now imagine the same scenario again, a tree with one hundred apples but you believe it only has fifty. You decide to be honest so you tell me the tree has fifty apples because that's what you believe. But in actuality it has one hundred apples. You were wrong, you didn't lie.
But a disagreement implies someone is wrong.
P1 is false. In fact it is begging the question that this whole thread is about: Do moral facts exist. P1 suggests that epistemic facts don't exist unless moral facts exist. This is just wrong.I have given a couple of arguements that have not been defeated. ie
Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
As I have also pointed out subjective feelings, opinions or preferences don't rachet up to moral issues. So lets use your example of which sci fi movie is better but instead lets put rape as the issue of disagreement where we have someone with the view that rape is ok to do.It implies that there are two people with a difference of opinion.
If it is regarding something subjective, then neither can be said to be wrong.
If I, a Star Trek fan, disagrees with a Star Wars fan about which is the better science fiction franchise, does that mean that one of us is objectively wrong? Of course not. The Star Wars fan's claim that SW is better is just as valid as my claim that Trek is better.
The only difference is that with morality, most of us hold the same opinion, for example, that murder is bad. But that doesn't mean it is objective. As I've pointed out, most people have the opinion that Battlefield Earth is a terrible movie, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively true. It's just that people very often mistakenly believe that a viewpoint that lots of people hold must be objectively true simply because it's a widespread viewpoint.
No its the other way around "If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist". This is an important destinction because there are epistemic facts in certain situations like when two people engage in a philosophcal debate. So P1 can be argued that epistemic facts are tied to moral facts.P1 is false. In fact it is begging the question that this whole thread is about: Do moral facts exist. P1 suggests that epistemic facts don't exist unless moral facts exist. This is just wrong.
Human "Life" is valuable in itself. This doesnt require any additional qualities and other values that should follow because human "Life" having that innate value obligates certain standards of life to be Human. Its the same with animals. Their "Life" is valuable on its own. Its nature is valuable because it is a state that is like no other. We recognise this when we see it.But it's okay to kill animals. Why is it okay to make there be less of something that is intrinsically valuable? Anything that is intrinsically valuable we ought to preserve and protect because we ought to value it.
How do you measure value?
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?