Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:33 am
Extraordinary. All that research, and you can't do the one thing you need to do, which is to show how a moral assertion can be empirically verified or falsified.
All you've done is invent a question-begging 'moral framework and system of knowledge'; claim there are moral facts within it, which you insist must be verified empirically and philosophically, though you've failed to provide one example; and finally say we should adopt that non-existent moral fact as a standard. And notice the 'should' in the previous sentence.
Why 'should' we adopt any moral standard?
Is it a fact that we should, or only an opinion?
Answer: at the bottom of any moral argument there's a moral judgement, which is therefore subjective.
It is dumb a 'Answer' from your kindergarten class.
I agree Why 'should' we adopt any moral standard?
is a very fair question.
Upon any answer to the above question,
we must continue to ask 'Why' Why? and Why? ....
I have answers for many of the thereafter 'Whys'.
Note my forte is in Problem Solving Techniques,
it would be careless of me to overlook the basic and essential Five-Whys Technique [not necessary 5-Whys, it can be as many as possible to get to the proximate or ultimate set of root causes] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys
Five whys (or 5 whys) is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem.[1] The primary goal of the technique is to determine the root cause of a defect or problem by repeating the question "Why?". Each answer forms the basis of the next question.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:35 am
And like all moral injunctions the practicality of lighthouses are also dependant on arbirary values. In particular the welfare of ships in this case, which is not a necessary or objective stance to take.
How come you are SO stupid? [literally unintelligent with low IQ in this sense]
Lighthouses are placed in the strategic location based on facts, i.e. based on empirical evidences of the factual and actual cliffs, rocks, corals and other dangers where ships has to pass to get to their destinations. This is very objective.
Dumb fuck.
Why would I want to spend money protecting other people's ships?
I might make lots of cash waiting for ships to dash their hulls against the rocks so I can make a living off wrecking and salvage.
The objectives of a community of wreckers differs from the poor souls who try to ply their trade in their waters.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:33 am
Extraordinary. All that research, and you can't do the one thing you need to do, which is to show how a moral assertion can be empirically verified or falsified.
All you've done is invent a question-begging 'moral framework and system of knowledge'; claim there are moral facts within it, which you insist must be verified empirically and philosophically, though you've failed to provide one example; and finally say we should adopt that non-existent moral fact as a standard. And notice the 'should' in the previous sentence.
Why 'should' we adopt any moral standard?
Is it a fact that we should, or only an opinion?
Answer: at the bottom of any moral argument there's a moral judgement, which is therefore subjective.
It is dumb a 'Answer' from your kindergarten class.
I agree Why 'should' we adopt any moral standard?
is a very fair question.
Upon any answer to the above question,
we must continue to ask 'Why' Why? and Why? ....
I have answers for many of the thereafter 'Whys'.
Note my forte is in Problem Solving Techniques,
it would be careless of me to overlook the basic and essential Five-Whys Technique [not necessary 5-Whys, it can be as many as possible to get to the proximate or ultimate set of root causes] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys
Five whys (or 5 whys) is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem.[1] The primary goal of the technique is to determine the root cause of a defect or problem by repeating the question "Why?". Each answer forms the basis of the next question.
Okay, why should we adopt any, or any particular, moral standard? Is it a fact that we should, or only an opinion? Use your technique and demonstrate that there's a fact at the end that answers those questions. Be brave. Put your money where your mouth is.
I know by intuition that abortion is not morally wrong, because no one has the right to use someone else's body as a possession or a resource without that person's permission. And I can demonstrate empirically and philosophically that abortion is not morally wrong. It's just a fact. And anyone who denies that must be ignorant, narrow, bigoted, stupid, morally deficient, probably religious, and so on.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:55 pm
I thought everyone should be aware ...
I know by intuition that abortion is not morally wrong, because no one has the right to use someone else's body as a possession or a resource without that person's permission. And I can demonstrate empirically and philosophically that abortion is not morally wrong. It's just a fact. And anyone who denies that must be ignorant, narrow, bigoted, stupid, morally deficient, probably religious, and so on.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:55 pm
I thought everyone should be aware ...
I know by intuition that abortion is not morally wrong, because no one has the right to use someone else's body as a possession or a resource without that person's permission. And I can demonstrate empirically and philosophically that abortion is not morally wrong. It's just a fact. And anyone who denies that must be ignorant, narrow, bigoted, stupid, morally deficient, probably religious, and so on.
I know, thru reason, abortion is murder
anyone denyin' this is a crapsack
Yeah, but I have reason AND intuition on my side. So that trumps your reason. Prove me wrong.
FFS, Henry. You OWN youself, and that includes your body. Does anyone else have the right to use your body as a resource without your consent? Is that a yes I'm hearing?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:55 pm
I thought everyone should be aware ...
I know by intuition that abortion is not morally wrong, because no one has the right to use someone else's body as a possession or a resource without that person's permission. And I can demonstrate empirically and philosophically that abortion is not morally wrong. It's just a fact. And anyone who denies that must be ignorant, narrow, bigoted, stupid, morally deficient, probably religious, and so on.
I know, thru reason, abortion is murder
anyone denyin' this is a crapsack
Yeah, but I have reason AND intuition on my side. So that trumps your reason. Prove me wrong.
FFS, Henry. You OWN youself, and that includes your body. Does anyone else have the right to use your body as a resource without your consent? Is that a yes I'm hearing?
yeah, but my reason extends out of my intution, so there
if I willingly engage in behavior that I know is gonna put a baby in my belly: that's on me...I don't get to off lil fetus person for sumthin' he had no hand in...I did the deed, not that lil guy...minimally, I owe it to the lil booger to take care of him till he's born, then I can shuffle him off to the orphanage
Yeah, but I have reason AND intuition on my side. So that trumps your reason. Prove me wrong.
FFS, Henry. You OWN youself, and that includes your body. Does anyone else have the right to use your body as a resource without your consent? Is that a yes I'm hearing?
yeah, but my reason extends out of my intution, so there
if I willingly engage in behavior that I know is gonna put a baby in my belly: that's on me...I don't get to off lil fetus person for sumthin' he had no hand in...I did the deed, not that lil guy...minimally, I owe it to the lil booger to take care of him till he's born, then I can shuffle him off to the orphanage
So you think someone else can use your body as a resource without your consent? Okay, they're coming round now for one of your kidneys, a lung and an eyeball, cos other people need them. And you'll be okay, you can manage. And it's a moral fact that they can do it. And when you're raped and there's a foetus growing inside you, tough shit. It has a right to be there whatever you want. And that's another moral fact.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 3:16 pm
Yeah, but I have reason AND intuition on my side. So that trumps your reason. Prove me wrong.
FFS, Henry. You OWN youself, and that includes your body. Does anyone else have the right to use your body as a resource without your consent? Is that a yes I'm hearing?
yeah, but my reason extends out of my intution, so there
if I willingly engage in behavior that I know is gonna put a baby in my belly: that's on me...I don't get to off lil fetus person for sumthin' he had no hand in...I did the deed, not that lil guy...minimally, I owe it to the lil booger to take care of him till he's born, then I can shuffle him off to the orphanage
So you think someone else can use your body as a resource without your consent? Okay, they're coming round now for one of your kidneys, a lung and an eyeball, cos other people need them. And you'll be okay, you can manage. And it's a moral fact that they can do it. And when you're raped and there's a foetus growing inside you, tough shit. It has a right to be there whatever you want. And that's another moral fact.
yeah, but my reason extends out of my intution, so there
if I willingly engage in behavior that I know is gonna put a baby in my belly: that's on me...I don't get to off lil fetus person for sumthin' he had no hand in...I did the deed, not that lil guy...minimally, I owe it to the lil booger to take care of him till he's born, then I can shuffle him off to the orphanage
So you think someone else can use your body as a resource without your consent? Okay, they're coming round now for one of your kidneys, a lung and an eyeball, cos other people need them. And you'll be okay, you can manage. And it's a moral fact that they can do it. And when you're raped and there's a foetus growing inside you, tough shit. It has a right to be there whatever you want. And that's another moral fact.
yeah, you ain't payin' attention, pete...
Right. I was wrong. It's a moral fact that no one has the right to own or use someone else's body without their consent. And cos it's a fact, you're just wrong about abortion. There's no argument here. We're not dealing with a matter of opinion. It's a moral fact that we own ourselves, including our bodies. So you and other pro-lifers are just factually wrong. Suck it up.
Unless a sentient creature consents to being owned, killed and eaten, it's morally wrong to own, kill and eat it. And that's just a moral fact, not a matter of opinion. So you non-vegans are moral degenerates. And that's a fact. Suck it up.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 3:39 pm
So you think someone else can use your body as a resource without your consent? Okay, they're coming round now for one of your kidneys, a lung and an eyeball, cos other people need them. And you'll be okay, you can manage. And it's a moral fact that they can do it. And when you're raped and there's a foetus growing inside you, tough shit. It has a right to be there whatever you want. And that's another moral fact.
yeah, you ain't payin' attention, pete...
Right. I was wrong. It's a moral fact that no one has the right to own or use someone else's body without their consent. And cos it's a fact, you're just wrong about abortion. There's no argument here. We're not dealing with a matter of opinion. It's a moral fact that we own ourselves, including our bodies. So you and other pro-lifers are just factually wrong. Suck it up.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:02 pm
I thought everyone should be aware ...
Unless a sentient creature consents to being owned, killed and eaten, it's morally wrong to own, kill and eat it. And that's just a moral fact, not a matter of opinion. So you non-vegans are moral degenerates. And that's a fact. Suck it up.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:02 pm
I thought everyone should be aware ...
Unless a sentient creature consents to being owned, killed and eaten, it's morally wrong to own, kill and eat it. And that's just a moral fact, not a matter of opinion. So you non-vegans are moral degenerates. And that's a fact. Suck it up.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:02 pm
I thought everyone should be aware ...
Unless a sentient creature consents to being owned, killed and eaten, it's morally wrong to own, kill and eat it. And that's just a moral fact, not a matter of opinion. So you non-vegans are moral degenerates. And that's a fact. Suck it up.
