Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:23 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:18 pm

And there goes any claim of basic reading comprehension skills.

Why?

Did I say anything like "emotion is 'what all matters'"?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:10 pm HOW do 'you' KNOW this "terrapin station"?

Do 'you' KNOW EVERY thing about what EVERY one thinks?

All you need to know is one person who disagrees with something.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm I disagree with many conventional moral views.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm I've known people who've disagreed with others.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm And I know of people who disagree with yet more.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm What do you imagine is any moral view that every single person agrees with?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm The big screw-up here though is that I bothered responding to you. I temporarily blanked out on the fact that it's a waste of time. I temporarily forgot that you're that creation/evolution moron.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:37 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:23 pm
Why?

Did I say anything like "emotion is 'what all matters'"?

Feeling or emotion. What is the difference? Our discussion forked from the point that I asked you that what is an important fact in making a moral decision and you answered feeling. For example, I definitively asked that whether it is good to torture a killer if the majority feels good for it. Your answer was yes.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:05 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:10 pm HOW do 'you' KNOW this "terrapin station"?

Do 'you' KNOW EVERY thing about what EVERY one thinks?

All you need to know is one person who disagrees with something.

But that 'something' is OBVIOUSLY is NOT what can be agreed upon.

Remember, we are talking about what 'it' is that can be agreed upon and NOT what is NOT agreed upon.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm I disagree with many conventional moral views.

Then they are OBVIOUSLY NOT what are actually 'morally right'.

Remember, ONLY 'that' what is agreed upon by ALL is 'morally right'.

Even you imply that what is 'morally right' is felt. This implies that ONLY 'that' what is ACTUALLY 'morally right' would be 'that', which is felt by ALL.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm I've known people who've disagreed with others.

I also KNOW of many people who disagree.

I even KNOW that when I say that, ' what is a 'morally right behavior' is 'that behavior' with is agreed by ALL', will NOT be agreed with by many people.

But I also do KNOW WHY these many people WILL DISAGREE.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm And I know of people who disagree with yet more.

What people DISAGREE WITH is of NO real importance here. What is REALLY IMPORTANT here, and in Life, is 'that' what ALL agree with.

People just DISAGREE about MANY things because ALL people have just had different past experiences.
People also do NOT YET KNOW why they think and do some/most of the things they think and do.
So, DISAGREEMENT is NOT unexpected at all.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm What do you imagine is any moral view that every single person agrees with?

THANK YOU. After years, a CLARIFYING QUESTION is proposed.

Firstly, it is NOT up to 'me' singularly to propose some 'thing', because as you have SO RIGHTLY POINTED OUT 'many people WILL disagree'. See, some people WILL even disagree just for the sake of 'disagreeing', itself. So, no matter what I propose there could be someone who will just disagree just for the sake of 'disagreeing', itself. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN throughout past human discourse.

But, now, if you are asking me this from a Truly OPEN viewpoint, then a moral view that EVERY one could agree with is 'that' human beings, in the days of when this is being written, do NOT need to kill animals just for food.

Now;

1. I use the word 'could' for the very specific reason that EVERY one 'could' agree with this, but this does NOT necessarily mean that EVERY one 'would' agree with this. But, if there is a 'moral view/principle/stance' that EVERY 'could' agree with, then 'it' is a view, or a truth, that could NOT be refuted.

2. If human beings can live without eating meat, then human beings do not 'need' to kill animals just for food. ANY, so called, "vegetarian" is LIVING PROOF that human beings do NOT 'need' to eat meat to keep living and surviving.

3. Now, OF COURSE, there will be MANY MILLIONS of people in the days of when this is being written that will 'try to' "justify" eating the meat, of their choosing. But, I will ask the question, which animal/s is it 'all right' to kill for food, and which ones is it 'not all right' to kill for food?

From this what will be CLEARLY SEEN is that EVERY one who will 'try to' "justify", will 'try to' "justify" that the killing of the animals that they grew up eating are the animal/s that are "all right" to kill and eat. While at the same time insisting and protesting that the killing of "other" animals is WRONG, BARBARIC, and/or 'not all right' at all. YET, these same people if grew up in other countries or cultures would be 'trying to' "argue" and "justify" from the exact opposite perspective.

4. But what can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN is that NO animal is needed to be killed for human beings to keep living and surviving and that EVERY one 'could' agree with this VERY SIMPLE and VERY PLAIN FACT.

5. Now, OF COURSE, human beings did NEED to kill and eat animals, otherwise human beings would NOT have evolved to be living and surviving in the days of when this is being written. But, if human beings do NOT 'need' to kill animals for their survival, then the attempts at 'trying to' "justify" the killing of animals, which different groups of people will 'try to' "justify" will NEVER work successfully.

6. What makes something 'morally right' or 'morally wrong' is depended upon what is agreed with by EVERY one, AND, if you were "in their shoes", as some say, then would you want it done to you?

The big screw-up here though is that I bothered responding to you. I temporarily blanked out on the fact that it's a waste of time. I temporarily forgot that you're that creation/evolution moron.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:08 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:37 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:33 pm

Did I say anything like "emotion is 'what all matters'"?

Feeling or emotion. What is the difference? Our discussion forked from the point that I asked you that what is an important fact in making a moral decision and you answered feeling. For example, I definitively asked that whether it is good to torture a killer if the majority feels good for it. Your answer was yes.

First off, you didn't ask exactly either of those things, because I would have had an issue with both as phrased.

What's "important" is as subjective as moral dispositions are.

It's a matter of fact--so it has nothing to do with importance, that foundational moral stances are merely dispositional, or we could say intuitive or a matter of "feeling". There's no other way to arrive at a foundational moral stance. This isn't to say that this is "what all matters" (or "all that matters"). Once you have your foundational moral stances, at least in a particular scenario, you can reason on top of those, so to speak.

Secondly, I'm the furthest person from saying that if a majority thinks that x, then x. So I'd never say that "just in a case a majority feels that m is morally good, then m is morally good."

Rather, you were going on with some nonsense to the effect that just in case S thinks that m is morally permissible, then S can't be penalized by others for m. That's obviously not the case (even though you might personally be of a disposition that we should always cater reactions to actors' moral views).

So this all suggests serious reading comprehension problems, as we've been going over and over this stuff. Maybe it's a language issue (if English isn't your first language)?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:20 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:08 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:37 pm
Feeling or emotion. What is the difference? Our discussion forked from the point that I asked you that what is an important fact in making a moral decision and you answered feeling. For example, I definitively asked that whether it is good to torture a killer if the majority feels good for it. Your answer was yes.

First off, you didn't ask exactly either of those things, because I would have had an issue with both as phrased.

What's "important" is as subjective as moral dispositions are.

It's a matter of fact--so it has nothing to do with importance, that foundational moral stances are merely dispositional, or we could say intuitive or a matter of "feeling". There's no other way to arrive at a foundational moral stance. This isn't to say that this is "what all matters" (or "all that matters"). Once you have your foundational moral stances, at least in a particular scenario, you can reason on top of those, so to speak.

Secondly, I'm the furthest person from saying that if a majority thinks that x, then x. So I'd never say that "just in a case a majority feels that m is morally good, then m is morally good."

Rather, you were going on with some nonsense to the effect that just in case S thinks that m is morally permissible, then S can't be penalized by others for m. That's obviously not the case (even though you might personally be of a disposition that we should always cater reactions to actors' moral views).

So this all suggests serious reading comprehension problems, as we've been going over and over this stuff. Maybe it's a language issue (if English isn't your first language)?

I think I understood you well. Can we arrive at a point that both feeling and rationality are important when it comes to a moral situation?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:21 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:20 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:08 am
First off, you didn't ask exactly either of those things, because I would have had an issue with both as phrased.

What's "important" is as subjective as moral dispositions are.

It's a matter of fact--so it has nothing to do with importance, that foundational moral stances are merely dispositional, or we could say intuitive or a matter of "feeling". There's no other way to arrive at a foundational moral stance. This isn't to say that this is "what all matters" (or "all that matters"). Once you have your foundational moral stances, at least in a particular scenario, you can reason on top of those, so to speak.

Secondly, I'm the furthest person from saying that if a majority thinks that x, then x. So I'd never say that "just in a case a majority feels that m is morally good, then m is morally good."

Rather, you were going on with some nonsense to the effect that just in case S thinks that m is morally permissible, then S can't be penalized by others for m. That's obviously not the case (even though you might personally be of a disposition that we should always cater reactions to actors' moral views).

So this all suggests serious reading comprehension problems, as we've been going over and over this stuff. Maybe it's a language issue (if English isn't your first language)?

I think I understood you well. Can we arrive at a point that both feeling and rationality are important when it comes to a moral situation?

That's not something I agree with as a generality. It depends on the situation at hand, and then it would also just be me saying that I feel it's important. Again, importance is subjective.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:08 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:05 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm
All you need to know is one person who disagrees with something.

But that 'something' is OBVIOUSLY is NOT what can be agreed upon.

Remember, we are talking about what 'it' is that can be agreed upon and NOT what is NOT agreed upon.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm I disagree with many conventional moral views.

Then they are OBVIOUSLY NOT what are actually 'morally right'.

Remember, ONLY 'that' what is agreed upon by ALL is 'morally right'.

Even you imply that what is 'morally right' is felt. This implies that ONLY 'that' what is ACTUALLY 'morally right' would be 'that', which is felt by ALL.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm I've known people who've disagreed with others.

I also KNOW of many people who disagree.

I even KNOW that when I say that, ' what is a 'morally right behavior' is 'that behavior' with is agreed by ALL', will NOT be agreed with by many people.

But I also do KNOW WHY these many people WILL DISAGREE.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm And I know of people who disagree with yet more.

What people DISAGREE WITH is of NO real importance here. What is REALLY IMPORTANT here, and in Life, is 'that' what ALL agree with.

People just DISAGREE about MANY things because ALL people have just had different past experiences.
People also do NOT YET KNOW why they think and do some/most of the things they think and do.
So, DISAGREEMENT is NOT unexpected at all.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:13 pm What do you imagine is any moral view that every single person agrees with?

THANK YOU. After years, a CLARIFYING QUESTION is proposed.

Firstly, it is NOT up to 'me' singularly to propose some 'thing', because as you have SO RIGHTLY POINTED OUT 'many people WILL disagree'. See, some people WILL even disagree just for the sake of 'disagreeing', itself. So, no matter what I propose there could be someone who will just disagree just for the sake of 'disagreeing', itself. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN throughout past human discourse.

But, now, if you are asking me this from a Truly OPEN viewpoint, then a moral view that EVERY one could agree with is 'that' human beings, in the days of when this is being written, do NOT need to kill animals just for food.

Now;

1. I use the word 'could' for the very specific reason that EVERY one 'could' agree with this, but this does NOT necessarily mean that EVERY one 'would' agree with this. But, if there is a 'moral view/principle/stance' that EVERY 'could' agree with, then 'it' is a view, or a truth, that could NOT be refuted.

2. If human beings can live without eating meat, then human beings do not 'need' to kill animals just for food. ANY, so called, "vegetarian" is LIVING PROOF that human beings do NOT 'need' to eat meat to keep living and surviving.

3. Now, OF COURSE, there will be MANY MILLIONS of people in the days of when this is being written that will 'try to' "justify" eating the meat, of their choosing. But, I will ask the question, which animal/s is it 'all right' to kill for food, and which ones is it 'not all right' to kill for food?

From this what will be CLEARLY SEEN is that EVERY one who will 'try to' "justify", will 'try to' "justify" that the killing of the animals that they grew up eating are the animal/s that are "all right" to kill and eat. While at the same time insisting and protesting that the killing of "other" animals is WRONG, BARBARIC, and/or 'not all right' at all. YET, these same people if grew up in other countries or cultures would be 'trying to' "argue" and "justify" from the exact opposite perspective.

4. But what can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN is that NO animal is needed to be killed for human beings to keep living and surviving and that EVERY one 'could' agree with this VERY SIMPLE and VERY PLAIN FACT.

5. Now, OF COURSE, human beings did NEED to kill and eat animals, otherwise human beings would NOT have evolved to be living and surviving in the days of when this is being written. But, if human beings do NOT 'need' to kill animals for their survival, then the attempts at 'trying to' "justify" the killing of animals, which different groups of people will 'try to' "justify" will NEVER work successfully.

6. What makes something 'morally right' or 'morally wrong' is depended upon what is agreed with by EVERY one, AND, if you were "in their shoes", as some say, then would you want it done to you?

The big screw-up here though is that I bothered responding to you. I temporarily blanked out on the fact that it's a waste of time. I temporarily forgot that you're that creation/evolution moron.

Holy crap re the length of your response.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:21 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:20 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:08 am
First off, you didn't ask exactly either of those things, because I would have had an issue with both as phrased.

What's "important" is as subjective as moral dispositions are.

It's a matter of fact--so it has nothing to do with importance, that foundational moral stances are merely dispositional, or we could say intuitive or a matter of "feeling". There's no other way to arrive at a foundational moral stance. This isn't to say that this is "what all matters" (or "all that matters"). Once you have your foundational moral stances, at least in a particular scenario, you can reason on top of those, so to speak.

Secondly, I'm the furthest person from saying that if a majority thinks that x, then x. So I'd never say that "just in a case a majority feels that m is morally good, then m is morally good."

Rather, you were going on with some nonsense to the effect that just in case S thinks that m is morally permissible, then S can't be penalized by others for m. That's obviously not the case (even though you might personally be of a disposition that we should always cater reactions to actors' moral views).

So this all suggests serious reading comprehension problems, as we've been going over and over this stuff. Maybe it's a language issue (if English isn't your first language)?

I think I understood you well. Can we arrive at a point that both feeling and rationality are important when it comes to a moral situation?

That's not something I agree with as a generality. It depends on the situation at hand, and then it would also just be me saying that I feel it's important. Again, importance is subjective.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:23 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:18 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:00 pm
The point is that all had never agreed with what is morally right because different people think and feel differently.

Here is ANOTHER one who thinks and/or believes that they KNOW what EVERY one thinks.

It is hard enough to get 'you', human beings, to agree on what the VERY SIMPLE word 'morally' means, let alone to get 'you' to agree on and with what is 'morally right'.

But, this is NO WAY infers NOR means that 'you' ALL do NOT agree on what is ACTUALLY 'morally right' and 'morally wrong'.

In fact, KNOWING what is 'morally right', which can be agreed with by ALL of 'you', is very simple and very easy to do. You just have to KNOW-HOW.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:00 pm The question is whether there is a principle that everybody can agree upon so we can have a common definition of morality and eventually find peace.

Well the answer to this is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to reach and KNOW as well.

Now, if you would like to begin with A PRINCIPLE, so that we can 'kick this off', as they say, then let us begin.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:00 pm What do you think that principle is that people should be agreed upon?

First of you just RUINED the WHOLE discussion by SAYING and STATING; "that people SHOULD agree upon".

There is NO "should" in relation to 'what is morally right' and 'what is morally wrong'. Either there is a position, stance, or principle that ALL can agree with or there is NOT.

I KNOW there IS.

What is it?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:23 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:18 pm

Here is ANOTHER one who thinks and/or believes that they KNOW what EVERY one thinks.

It is hard enough to get 'you', human beings, to agree on what the VERY SIMPLE word 'morally' means, let alone to get 'you' to agree on and with what is 'morally right'.

But, this is NO WAY infers NOR means that 'you' ALL do NOT agree on what is ACTUALLY 'morally right' and 'morally wrong'.

In fact, KNOWING what is 'morally right', which can be agreed with by ALL of 'you', is very simple and very easy to do. You just have to KNOW-HOW.



Well the answer to this is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to reach and KNOW as well.

Now, if you would like to begin with A PRINCIPLE, so that we can 'kick this off', as they say, then let us begin.



First of you just RUINED the WHOLE discussion by SAYING and STATING; "that people SHOULD agree upon".

There is NO "should" in relation to 'what is morally right' and 'what is morally wrong'. Either there is a position, stance, or principle that ALL can agree with or there is NOT.

I KNOW there IS.

What is it?

What I explained in reply to "terrapin station", when it asked me; What do you imagine is any moral view that every single person agrees with?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:08 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:23 pm
What is it?

What I explained in reply to "terrapin station", when it asked me; What do you imagine is any moral view that every single person agrees with?

Every person should agree on equity.