Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Demonstrate one exists and I will acknowlege it freely.
Hang on. YOU are accusing ME of a contradiction. And to support YOUR accusation you want ME to example of it?
Errrr no. You are the one making the accusation. The onus of making that case lies with you, not me. Do your own homework.
Thanks, and btw i don't find issue with every single entry. Anyway I'm going to have a coffee, theres a problem with above maybe it could be rephrased.
Contradiction in how things are phrased, thats why terms are neccesary. A model representing a contradiction is required in order to agree to terms. Without terms nothing can be founded upon, terms, contract law, negotiations . Man has figured these things out. What are the terms, a model explaining contradiction is required in order to understand the terms of what is being communicated.Communication is a means of exchange.
Demonstrate one exists and I will acknowlege it freely.
Hang on. YOU are accusing ME of a contradiction. And to support YOUR accusation you want ME to example of it?
Errrr no. You are the one making the accusation. The onus of making that case lies with you, not me. Do your own homework.
Its to do with fair terms. Everyone can example a contradiction for a model and its their own homework. No matter what is suggested in anything, a relative example can be used to defy the suggestion unless, there exists an absolute fundemental conviction in support as foundation for the suggestion. No matter what is explained some positions in discourse ignore the essence of any acheiving fundemental foundation otherwise known as terms. Therefore what are the terms, -an example with respects to the role of terms , profit..a companies root objective is an achieving profit, those are the terms of decision mostly for sake of an analogy. No terms nothing can be founded, experience dealing with a company without terms wouldn't be anticipated for reasons to do with buisness , money.. mutually understood terms acting as foundation for association, a found common ground enabling exchange . Nothing new or fancy at all just regular, popular things raised in anything debatable by moderation.
Last edited by Sophronius; 10-13-2014 at 10:57 PM..
Have not read through all the posts but doesn't this make it your morality not a universal morality.
How would you know if your feel good is not hurting someone else and if you became aware would you stop doing it?
Some think shopping at Walmart is immoral because of the opportunity loss to the small business owner.
Some don't.
Which one is correct?
Have not read through all the posts but doesn't this make it your morality not a universal morality.
How would you know if your feel good is not hurting someone else and if you became aware would you stop doing it?
Some think shopping at Walmart is immoral because of the opportunity loss to the small business owner.
Some don't.
Which one is correct?
There's really no such thing as "universal" morality - only universal aspects of the human condition that makes certain things universally unwanted.
As I told Vizio somewhere in this mess of posts - there are no civilizations where its citizens are lining up to be tortured or paying premium prices to be locked up in dungeons. No civilization has mothers grabbing their babies and running to the curb begging passing pedophiles to please take my child. There are no civilizations where people are angry with their government for not committing genocide on themselves nor are their civilizations where women are walking around naked with a "Please Rape Me" sign worn around their necks.
Thus calling such things as murder, pedophilia, false imprisonment, rape, torture, genocide among other things as "universally immoral" is about the best you're going to get. Even in those cases, there are still going to be those who do not find any of those activities to be immoral.
Then do so. You have suggested there is some contradiction in what I wrote. Yet you refuse to show how or where.
(a) "That is because morality is subjective so any view I, or you, express on the subject is subjective." I have never denied this so do not presume to declare it as if you have uncovered some hidden truth about me. My whole point is that I see no reason, least of all from you, to suggest morality is objective or absolute. Rather I see it as being entirely subjective but with powerful human and biological reasons to explain the areas of massive consensus on some moral issues.
(b) "I do not agree with that at all. Morality is related to how we treat others and the world around us. It is by no means limited to just us. If there was only the individual there would be nothing to be moral about, or against. Morality by definition involved more than just the individual. It is an equation with two sides." And morality can be judged and implemented not just at the level of the individual, but at the level of groups or even whole societies.
Above two paragraphs in opinion seem to be contradictions as phrased.
(c) There is, but only because we have decreed it to be so as a species. They do not exist independent of us, or, to be more precise, you have failed in every petty attempt to suggest they do. Perhaps they do, for all I know, but you have certainly not demonstrated this to be so. Nor has anyone else I have ever met.
They are independant of ourselves and are the terms with attention to the being and survival of the human species. ( conditions)
We did not decree it to be so, they are conditions of both the setting and nature of the human species, which man has no control over, therefore man obliges with recognizing the reality of an objective value . ( terms)
Last edited by Sophronius; 10-14-2014 at 11:42 AM..
Above two paragraphs in opinion seem to be contradictions as phrased.
How so and where? You have merely quoted two things from me and declared there seems to be a contradiction. I can not see it. Explain it and perhaps then I can reply to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophronius
They are independant of ourselves and are the terms with attention to the being and survival of the human species. ( conditions)
What exactly is independent of ourselves? And where are they? How have you observed and measured them? Substantiate their existence for me here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophronius
We did not decree it to be so, they are conditions of both the setting and nature of the human species
Is that not exactly what I said? I said that morality, while subjective, is constrained by the facts about us as a species. Take pain for example. The vast majority of us hate it, avoid it, and do not wish it inflicted upon either us or our loved ones. Our subjective morality is therefore constrained by this fact of the human conditions, and it leads to much consensus on those subjective moral opinions.
You and others appear to be mistaking consensus for objective fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
