I've addressed it a bunch of times. — Terrapin Station
You believe, for some reason unbeknownst to me, that if morality is simply something that we do as individual human beings, there shouldn't be widespread commonality on some moral stances. — Terrapin Station
He's in denial. I'm surprised his coping mechanism hasn't kicked in yet. You can tell when it has, because he'll close down and go, "Okay, have a nice day!". — S
No I obviously do not see the false equivalence- Can you explain it in a complete thought please. — Rank Amateur
If, as I do, believe there is a high degree of objective truth that murder is wrong, I would say that person is objectively wrong. — Rank Amateur
So you genuinely believe that my feelings about cheese and onion crisps are just like my feelings about raping babies, in every sense, respect, and degree?
Why on earth would you believe that? — S
That has nothing at all to do with my issue. — Rank Amateur
Well, obviously. If you believe that murder is objectively wrong (by which you mean someone committing murder is objectively wrong to do so), then is is simply a re-wording of your belief to say that a person who commits murder is objectively wrong to do so. — Isaac
What we haven't heard from you yet is your reason for believing that. You have so far shown that most people feel murder is wrong, now show what logic or mechanism makes it the case that the few who disagree must also feel that way. — Isaac
No my point was what is the origin of this commonality, is it coincidence, evolution, God, something else? — Rank Amateur
No my point was what is the origin of this commonality, is it coincidence, evolution, God, something else?
Where does it come from. — Rank Amateur
You know darn well it was about the commonality of some moral judgments not where our bodies came from. — Rank Amateur
Re (near-)unanimity on some things (even though I think that tends to be exaggerated), — Terrapin Station
The commonality in our moral feelings are just a result of human nature, like many other commonalities. But human nature includes variance, so naturally there is a variance in moral feelings.
And none of that does anything at all for moral objectivism. — S
As I asked terrapin, Can you briefly say what you understand my point to be, I think we are taking past each other. — Rank Amateur
You know darn well it was about the commonality of some moral judgments not where our bodies came from.
— Rank Amateur
Moral judgments are something that our bodies do in other words. — Terrapin Station
I believe there are things that are true. — Rank Amateur
I believe you can make a truth statement about murder. — Rank Amateur
— Rank Amateur
Why? This is precisely the contested point and instead of providing an argument to support it you've just re-asserted your belief. I understand you believe there is a truth value about murder. I gather you're religious, so obviously the fact of such a truth value is an article of your faith, but what purpose has it here? This is a philosophy forum, I'm not sure I see the purpose in our just declaring articles of faith and leaving it at that. — Isaac
Another non answer. No one is keeping score. Do you want to tag along with S and call it human nature? — Rank Amateur
Doo you understand that on my view, moral stances are something that our bodies do? So if you're questioning my stance critically, you're questioning the origin of our bodies doing something, questioning why our bodies would do something where there can be such widespread commonality. — Terrapin Station
I can just add this to the very long line of direct questions you refuse to answer. Because you have no real interest in ideas you are only concerned with winning an argument. — Rank Amateur
1.4k
The commonality in our moral feelings are just a result of human nature, like many other commonalities. But human nature includes variance, so naturally there is a variance in moral feelings.
And none of that does anything at all for moral objectivism.
— S
So we all as humans, by our very nature, have some near universal moral views, but that has nothing at all to do with that being to a high degree objective.
We are getting semantic now. — Rank Amateur
Instead of this, you have not responded to this yet — Rank Amateur
You can only have it your way if you tell me that you believe that there is no truth statement you can make about murder — Rank Amateur
You are asking me make an argument to prove 2 + 2 = 4 without using math. — Rank Amateur
I think that your comment suggested a false equivalence. It literally equated two very clearly dif — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.