- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 5,695
- Reaction score
- 1,805
- Location
- Madison, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
that was it can't you read it?
it can be right or wrong or just not matter
and which 1 it is can be different for every one and shifts with their feelings
Huh??
Let me guess, the theists are still trying to argue something into existence rather than showing existence as an argument.
I'm not asking other people... I'm asking you directly... what's your answer to the question.
morals are relative nothing absolutely matters
though i dont reject all principles so if you got a more suitable word then nihilism let me know
what about suicide? its bad if someone who i want to live dies and i generally want people to live
but its also bad if they suffer to the point where they want to die
if they can feel better that's better then suicide but if the condition can't be helped then suicide would be the less bad then someone living in pain
So you agree that morality exists?
I think this says it all, and it goes right in line with our argument... self-preservation is the very nature of all living things, and suicide directly counters that nature (which you admitted to in the bolded section), so there's a universal objective answer to Hamlet's Question...
I think this says it all, and it goes right in line with our argument... self-preservation is the very nature of all living things, and suicide directly counters that nature (which you admitted to in the bolded section), so there's a universal objective answer to Hamlet's Question...
Nope, but rather because your assertions fit right into the argument... You accept that mankind are agents... you just accepted that mankind can make moral decisions, etc... That means that you accept that mankind are moral agents. I'm assuming you agree with me in a general sense on what "moral issues" are (point #6) ... That then makes Hamlet's Question a moral question with a moral answer... and so on and so forth, until it concludes that there is a universal and objective moral answer.then your reasoning seems flawed. because i feel the way you do how you feel is objective?
Never said that nothing can choose to die... Point #2 actually shows that I claim that choice is involved. But that choice goes against the universal and objective inclination ("wanting") of self-preservation, according to biological science.because we both don't want to die nothing can?
Yes, that's the very definition of unnatural, which is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature"becaser nature tends to select for life that tries to live suicide is some how unnatural?
No, that's completely logical.that's non sense
But if neither right nor wrong, then why has it been favored and selected by nature as the universal action? The ad hoc a-moralist must answer, following his scientific theory, that it favors the propagation and continuance of species. At this point the a-moralist introduces a value and his argument is lost.
The question was: Whether as a matter of conscious, deliberate, premeditated, voluntary conduct, taking a human life is an act that is ever right or wrong, never right or wrong, or always right or wrong?Huh??
Nope, but rather because your assertions fit right into the argument... You accept that mankind are agents... you just accepted that mankind can make moral decisions, etc... That means that you accept that mankind are moral agents. I'm assuming you agree with me in a general sense on what "moral issues" are (point #6) ... That then makes Hamlet's Question a moral question with a moral answer... and so on and so forth, until it concludes that there is a universal and objective moral answer.
Never said that nothing can choose to die... Point #2 actually shows that I claim that choice is involved. But that choice goes against the universal and objective inclination ("wanting") of self-preservation, according to biological science.
Yes, that's the very definition of unnatural, which is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature"
No, that's completely logical.
The question was: Whether as a matter of conscious, deliberate, premeditated, voluntary conduct, taking a human life is an act that is ever right or wrong, never right or wrong, or always right or wrong?
Our friend wants to answer "ever, never, and always." He wants to answer all three. He wants to answer all three because he doesn't want to answer the question. Because he doesn't want to answer the question for himself, he slips into meta-ethics or descriptive ethics in order to say that different people will answer the question differently.
These dodges don't affect our argument, which is solidly based in a universal and objective value, attested by science itself.
Nope, but rather because your assertions fit right into the argument... You accept that mankind are agents... you just accepted that mankind can make moral decisions, etc... That means that you accept that mankind are moral agents. I'm assuming you agree with me in a general sense on what "moral issues" are (point #6) ... That then makes Hamlet's Question a moral question with a moral answer... and so on and so forth, until it concludes that there is a universal and objective moral answer.
Never said that nothing can choose to die... Point #2 actually shows that I claim that choice is involved. But that choice goes against the universal and objective inclination ("wanting") of self-preservation, according to biological science.
Yes, that's the very definition of unnatural, which is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature"
No, that's completely logical.
The question was: Whether as a matter of conscious, deliberate, premeditated, voluntary conduct, taking a human life is an act that is ever right or wrong, never right or wrong, or always right or wrong?
Our friend wants to answer "ever, never, and always." He wants to answer all three. He wants to answer all three because he doesn't want to answer the question. Because he doesn't want to answer the question for himself, he slips into meta-ethics or descriptive ethics in order to say that different people will answer the question differently.
These dodges don't affect our argument, which is solidly based in a universal and objective value, attested by science itself.
Hold off on the judgement part for now. We'll return to it. Here's a question for you: Are "behaviors [that] tend to the propagation of genes" good for the continuance of the species?Huh? Pointing out that these behaviors tend to lead to the propagation of genes doesn't involve a value judgement; it's simply identifying empirical fact.
Hold off on the judgement part for now. We'll return to it. Here's a question for you: Are "behaviors [that] tend to the propagation of genes" good for the continuance of the species?
In any sense of the word good you like. Are these behaviors good for the species? Are my cats as a species better off than the Dodo?No. Not in the normative sense of the word "good". These behaviors tend to realize (in the sense of "bring about") the continuation of the species. The content of this fact is entirely empirical; there is no normative content to it whatsoever.
In any sense of the word good you like.
Are these behaviors good for the species?
I've known you too long and like you too much to let your erratic behavior in gfm's Objective Morality thread stand in the way of our exchanging views. So if you would kindly leave a comment in my thread on "What's Wrong with the World" -- without quoting the whole OP -- all will be forgiven and I'll answer your "What's this?" question:...
what is this
universal and objective value, attested by science itself. that you speak of?
Hold off on the judgement part for now. We'll return to it. Here's a question for you: Are "behaviors [that] tend to the propagation of genes" good for the continuance of the species?
So you're choosing a meaning of the word "good" just so you can reject it, yes? Bene. That's the way to open the mind to a possible new way of viewing things.Then let's use it in the sense relevant to the topic at hand - morality.
No (or rather the fact that these behaviors realize the continuation of the species does not imply that said behaviors are "good" for the species).
So is it fair to conclude that you don't think the behaviors in question are good for the species in any sense?
Yes, I remember what you said about the normative use of "good." Do you remember my asking that we leave aside the question of judgment for now, to return to it later? That's why your choice of moral good, when asked to pick any meaning beyond the moral good which you had just rejected, seemed to me less than cricket.Of course not. The meaning of that statement will depend on the meaning of its words. Whether I agree or disagree with a statement will depend on its meaning (of course!).
If you want to use the string of characters g-o-o-d to mean something lacking any moral content like "realize" or "bring about", then I will readily agree that such behaviors are "g-o-o-d" for the continuation the species (ie, such behaviors realize the continuation of the species). But my point is that when we use the word in this way there is no normative content here! We're just using a word typically used to make ought-claims to instead make what is nothing more than an is-claim.
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?