Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?

[Iwannaplato]

you do not yet even know what I am even talking about here at all, let alone exactly.

I quoted the assertion which you continue to avoid justifying or proving.

Quoting others in no way means that you know what the other is talking about and referring to at all, let alone exactly.

More evasiveness. You made an assertion which you claim you can prove, but you avoid doing that. You are a liar.

Also noted is that you, once again, refused to answer the actual clarifying posed, and asked to you.

More garbled English. More distractions.

You asserted something that was false and avoid trying to justify or prove.

Obviously you are not a reasonable discussion partner. Should you change your mind and decide to try to demonstrate what you asserted is true, you can send me a PM. Or if you decide to apologize for the false claim you made about me, give me a PM. This latter option obviously shows more integrity.

I'll end my part in our off-topic tangent in this thread here. You're still a liar and distracter.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2024 3:19 pm
This one thinks it can just keep judging and judging others, and never be wrong.

He cannot justify this assertion and avoids trying.

[LuckyR]

you, obviously, have, and want to keep, your own personal views and beliefs on what 'ethics' and 'morality' are, so there is nothing to disagree with here.

Under your own personal definition here there could be as many different versions and answers to, 'Is driving fossil-fuelled cars immoral?', as there are different people. There is no point at all in disagreeing with the actual view or belief that one has, and wants to continue to hold onto.

So in your lexicon, what are ethics and morality?

To me,

'Morality' is; what is regarded as Right and Wrong and/or good and bad behaviour

And,

'Ethics' is to closely related to 'morality' to be of any distinguishing difference and concern for now.

So in your view, is morality used by humans to decide what to do, or to label behavior after it has been performed?

[Age]

So in your lexicon, what are ethics and morality?

To me,

'Morality' is; what is regarded as Right and Wrong and/or good and bad behaviour

And,

'Ethics' is to closely related to 'morality' to be of any distinguishing difference and concern for now.

So in your view, is morality used by humans to decide what to do, or to label behavior after it has been performed?

To me,

'Morality' is not some thing, which exists all by itself, that can be 'used' by human beings.

Human beings decide what is good or bad behavior, and, decide what is right or wrong behavior.

Also, 'labelling' behavior can happen before, and after, it has been performed.

[Age]

you do not yet even know what I am even talking about here at all, let alone exactly.

I quoted the assertion which you continue to avoid justifying or proving.

Quoting others in no way means that you know what the other is talking about and referring to at all, let alone exactly.

More evasiveness. You made an assertion which you claim you can prove, but you avoid doing that. You are a liar.

Also noted is that you, once again, refused to answer the actual clarifying posed, and asked to you.

More garbled English. More distractions.

You asserted something that was false and avoid trying to justify or prove.

Obviously you are not a reasonable discussion partner. Should you change your mind and decide to try to demonstrate what you asserted is true, you can send me a PM. Or if you decide to apologize for the false claim you made about me, give me a PM. This latter option obviously shows more integrity.

I'll end my part in our off-topic tangent in this thread here. You're still a liar and distracter.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2024 3:19 pm
This one thinks it can just keep judging and judging others, and never be wrong.

He cannot justify this assertion and avoids trying.

Just more negative judging and more negative criticizing. This one appears to have not changed at all, since its absence

[LuckyR]

To me,

'Morality' is; what is regarded as Right and Wrong and/or good and bad behaviour

And,

'Ethics' is to closely related to 'morality' to be of any distinguishing difference and concern for now.

So in your view, is morality used by humans to decide what to do, or to label behavior after it has been performed?

To me,

'Morality' is not some thing, which exists all by itself, that can be 'used' by human beings.

Human beings decide what is good or bad behavior, and, decide what is right or wrong behavior.

Also, 'labelling' behavior can happen before, and after, it has been performed.

Are you using good/bad and right/wrong interchangeably?

[Age]

So in your view, is morality used by humans to decide what to do, or to label behavior after it has been performed?

To me,

'Morality' is not some thing, which exists all by itself, that can be 'used' by human beings.

Human beings decide what is good or bad behavior, and, decide what is right or wrong behavior.

Also, 'labelling' behavior can happen before, and after, it has been performed.

Are you using good/bad and right/wrong interchangeably?

No, I use 'wrong' in relation to personal or individual morality, or abuse that is done without the intent to hurt nor harm,. Whereas, I use 'bad' where hurt or harm was intended.

I also use 'Right' and 'Wrong', with capitals, in relation to what is universally or objectively 'Right' and 'Wrong' in Life

I also know how to differentiate between what is just subjective, or personal and individual, morality from what is actually objective, universal and collective, morality, by the way.

[LuckyR]

To me,

'Morality' is not some thing, which exists all by itself, that can be 'used' by human beings.

Human beings decide what is good or bad behavior, and, decide what is right or wrong behavior.

Also, 'labelling' behavior can happen before, and after, it has been performed.

Are you using good/bad and right/wrong interchangeably?

No, I use 'wrong' in relation to personal or individual morality, or abuse that is done without the intent to hurt nor harm,. Whereas, I use 'bad' where hurt or harm was intended.

I also use 'Right' and 'Wrong', with capitals, in relation to what is universally or objectively 'Right' and 'Wrong' in Life

I also know how to differentiate between what is just subjective, or personal and individual, morality from what is actually objective, universal and collective, morality, by the way.

What qualifies a position as "objective, universal and collective"?

[Age]

Are you using good/bad and right/wrong interchangeably?

No, I use 'wrong' in relation to personal or individual morality, or abuse that is done without the intent to hurt nor harm,. Whereas, I use 'bad' where hurt or harm was intended.

I also use 'Right' and 'Wrong', with capitals, in relation to what is universally or objectively 'Right' and 'Wrong' in Life

I also know how to differentiate between what is just subjective, or personal and individual, morality from what is actually objective, universal and collective, morality, by the way.

What qualifies a position as "objective, universal and collective"?

When every one can agree with and accept 'it'.

[LuckyR]

No, I use 'wrong' in relation to personal or individual morality, or abuse that is done without the intent to hurt nor harm,. Whereas, I use 'bad' where hurt or harm was intended.

I also use 'Right' and 'Wrong', with capitals, in relation to what is universally or objectively 'Right' and 'Wrong' in Life

I also know how to differentiate between what is just subjective, or personal and individual, morality from what is actually objective, universal and collective, morality, by the way.

What qualifies a position as "objective, universal and collective"?

When every one can agree with and accept 'it'.

I don't disagree. Therefore it doesn't exist, right?

[Age]

What qualifies a position as "objective, universal and collective"?

When every one can agree with and accept 'it'.

I don't disagree. Therefore it doesn't exist, right?

Did you mean you do disagree?

Either way the answer will be, 'No'.

[Iwannaplato]

What qualifies a position as "objective, universal and collective"?

When every one can agree with and accept 'it'.

I don't disagree. Therefore it doesn't exist, right?

I certainly get where you're going with this. Or, really, where you already are. There's nothing that everyone agrees on. Hence....

I'd be a bit wary of his use of 'can' - which might add some swingroom. They can even if they don't.

Of course, that opens up doors for silliness to be objective.

[Age]

When every one can agree with and accept 'it'.

I don't disagree. Therefore it doesn't exist, right?

I certainly get where you're going with this. Or, really, where you already are. There's nothing that everyone agrees on.

So, to some there is absolutely nothing in the whole Universe that everyone agrees with.

Obviously now, besides this one one once again missing the point and, again, showing that it does absolutely nothing at all in order to try to better understand another, this one's belief here means that its own belief here is False and Wrong anyway.

Also, this one has, again, completely and utterly missed that where 'we' are 'here now's is, exactly, where I was taking 'this' to. I did this purposely, and the reason why will come-to-light soon enough. Well for some anyway, who have not yet already seen.

Hence....



I'd be a bit wary of his use of 'can' - which might add some swingroom. They can even if they don't.

What some see as 'swingroom' others see as being just another irrefutable Truth.

Which, by the way, is the Truth that everyone can, and literally, agree with, and accept, as they cannot refute them.

Of course, that opens up doors for silliness to be objective.

Once again, here 'we' can see another prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play, here.

Once more, this one's preexisting beliefs and presumptions here are stopping and preventing it from seeing and recognising the irrefutable Truths, in Life.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't disagree. Therefore it doesn't exist, right?

I certainly get where you're going with this. Or, really, where you already are. There's nothing that everyone agrees on.

So, to some there is absolutely nothing in the whole Universe that everyone agrees with.

Obviously now, besides this one one once again missing the point and, again, showing that it does absolutely nothing at all in order to try to better understand another, this one's belief here means that its own belief here is False and Wrong anyway.

Also, this one has, again, completely and utterly missed that where 'we' are 'here now's is, exactly, where I was taking 'this' to. I did this purposely, and the reason why will come-to-light soon enough. Well for some anyway, who have not yet already seen.

Hence....



I'd be a bit wary of his use of 'can' - which might add some swingroom. They can even if they don't.

What some see as 'swingroom' others see as being just another irrefutable Truth.

Which, by the way, is the Truth that everyone can, and literally, agree with, and accept, as they cannot refute them.

Of course, that opens up doors for silliness to be objective.

Once again, here 'we' can see another prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play, here.

Once more, this one's preexisting beliefs and presumptions here are stopping and preventing it from seeing and recognising the irrefutable Truths, in Life.

So, what does everyone agree on, now?
And is everything that we agree on now and have agreed on true?
Aren't there lots of things that we don't agree on that are objectively true?
If I don't agree about your claims about me that you made above are they therefore not objective?
Since everyone does not agree with them, in that case, and according to your definition what is objective is what we all agree is true.

[Age]

I certainly get where you're going with this. Or, really, where you already are. There's nothing that everyone agrees on.

So, to some there is absolutely nothing in the whole Universe that everyone agrees with.

Obviously now, besides this one one once again missing the point and, again, showing that it does absolutely nothing at all in order to try to better understand another, this one's belief here means that its own belief here is False and Wrong anyway.

Also, this one has, again, completely and utterly missed that where 'we' are 'here now's is, exactly, where I was taking 'this' to. I did this purposely, and the reason why will come-to-light soon enough. Well for some anyway, who have not yet already seen.

Hence....



I'd be a bit wary of his use of 'can' - which might add some swingroom. They can even if they don't.

What some see as 'swingroom' others see as being just another irrefutable Truth.

Which, by the way, is the Truth that everyone can, and literally, agree with, and accept, as they cannot refute them.

Of course, that opens up doors for silliness to be objective.

Once again, here 'we' can see another prime example of 'confirmation bias' at work, and at play, here.

Once more, this one's preexisting beliefs and presumptions here are stopping and preventing it from seeing and recognising the irrefutable Truths, in Life.

So, what does everyone agree on, now?

How quick you forget. you just told 'us' here that 'There's nothing that everyone agrees on'. So, to you, there is absolutely nothing at all that everyone agrees on.

And is everything that we agree on now and have agreed on true?

Who and/or what is the 'we' word here referring to, exactly?

Aren't there lots of things that we don't agree on that are objectively true?

Again, this all depends on who and/what the 'we' word here is referring to, exactly, and, of course, whatever 'the things' are, exactly.

Would you like to clarify here, now?

If I don't agree about your claims about me that you made above are they therefore not objective?

1. Seems like you already have and are holding onto an answer to your previous question here.

2. What claim do you believe I claimed about you that you do not agree with?

And, if I do not agree with your claims about me, then what does this mean, exactly, to you?

Since everyone does not agree with them, in that case, and according to your definition what is objective is what we all agree is true.

Okay.

[Iwannaplato]

How quick you forget. you just told 'us' here that 'There's nothing that everyone agrees on'. So, to you, there is absolutely nothing at all that everyone agrees on.

Of course, I remember my position on the matter. You have a different position. What do you think every one agrees on? And could you please support this claim.

And is everything that we agree on now and have agreed on true?

Who and/or what is the 'we' word here referring to, exactly?

Every one.

Aren't there lots of things that we don't agree on that are objectively true?

Again, this all depends on who and/what the 'we' word here is referring to, exactly, and, of course, whatever 'the things' are, exactly.

Every one.

2. What claim do you believe I claimed about you that you do not agree with?

Obviously now, besides this one one once again missing the point and, again, showing that it does absolutely nothing at all in order to try to better understand another, this one's belief here means that its own belief here is False and Wrong anyway.

The part where you claim 'it does nothing at all to try to better understand another.....' I disagree with that claim. Does this mean your claim is not objective, given that not every one agrees with it?

And, if I do not agree with your claims about me, then what does this mean, exactly, to you?

It means you have a different position on that issue.