Personhood

[FireDragon76]

I tend to think that what is moral and true is accepted as moral and true by the majority of people because it is moral and true.

That's circular logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's circular logic.

That's a bare assertion.

The majority of people believe 2+2=4. Why? Is 2+2=4 true because a majority of people believe it, or do a majority of people believe 2+2=4 because it is true?

 

[FireDragon76]

That's a bare assertion.

The majority of people believe 2+2=4. Why? Is 2+2=4 true because a majority of people believe it, or do a majority of people believe 2+2=4 because it is true?

Mathematics is an abstraction of the real world, that's why it's true. It is not true because the majority of people think it is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mathematics is an abstraction of the real world, that's why it's true. It is not true because the majority of people think it is true.

If it isn't circular for mathematics, then it isn't circular for morality.

 

[FireDragon76]

If it isn't circular for mathematics, then it isn't circular for morality.

I didn't make a circular argument. Not unless you don't believe there actually is such a thing as reality. Which would be a sad state of affairs if true.

Majority opinion cannot be the basis for objective morals to judge something right or wrong, because opinions are subject to change.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't make a circular argument.

I didn't say you did.

What is this? Who's on first?

 

[FireDragon76]

You're trying to say things just are, which is not much of an explanation. It's anti-intellectual.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're trying to say things just are, which is not much of an explanation. It's anti-intellectual.

"If personhood includes empathy, emotion, and the ability to judge morality then we, as people, would also be bound by morality to treat disabled people the same way we would want to be treated if we became or were disabled."--Me, post 32

The explanation is reason and logic combined with empathy.

 

[FireDragon76]

The explanation is reason and logic combined with empathy.

Don't engage in an is/ought fallacy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't engage in an is/ought fallacy.

How is that an is/ought fallacy?

 

[FireDragon76]

How is that an is/ought fallacy?

Do you think then, that morality is only a sentimentalism?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you think then, that morality is only a sentimentalism?

I clearly stated that morality is a combination of reason, logic, and empathy, not simply emotion as is found in sentimentalism.