Total posts: 3,457
-->
@Tarik
INcorrect. you are taking that out of context, and eliminating my posts after that, clarifying that that definition was not the one to be most reasonably interpreted. Furthermore, you completely forgot that morality applies to the "or proposition" of that definition. You do not understand my argument or you attempting to strawman it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Like crossing over in meiosis 1? That's an interesting choice.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Because you assume the reality you live in is real, otherwise, your arguments are invalid as they are based on subjective elements of a non-reality. It is an axiom, you are either a solipsist or you agree with it. And I can simply disagree - that is a ethical question, without a framework you have no room to declare it wrong or right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Also... DNA is replicated everytime in interphase during S phase of the cell cycle...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Because death is just a form of suffering, but with death there is no more suffering, therefore something which perpetuates life and suffering is worse than something which only kills, being tortured for example. An appeal to ignorance is not a proper argument.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Objective truth, as in something which is objectively true; such as the planets - are true independent of a mind; in contrast - morality is only true because of minds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
First of all, most animals are included in my moral framework, I am an ethical vegan; second off suffering is not only the physical experience but the mental experience of it happening;it is the epigenome of a person changing in response to external stimuli and activating certain genes and deactivating others - in other words, the mental component - so you are incorrect in regards to the nature of suffering and pain - but yes it is to avoid, generally, "death" more accurately it is to avoid suffering. If there was no harm associated with death then death would not be bad. Suffering is what makes death bad. Whether that suffering be external, internal, to the individual, or to others. Furthermore, fetus are incapable of feeling pain physically or mentally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I'm curious on your reasoning; is it because you'd rather abortion by professionals?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
What? I was talking about this view, in particular, my argument isn't dependent on anybody's views. Just the definitions of words.... morality is definitionally incapable of being objective.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
If I am arguing with a theist, such as you, then sure: I am not arguing with a nihilist, I am not a nihilist; therefore I do not care what nihilists think right this second. If I were to debate a nihilist or someone important in my life was a nihilist, sure; I mean specifically in regards to what we are discussing currently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life–conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end. Premature babies show very basic electrical activity in the primary sensory regions of the cerebral cortex–those areas that perceive touch, vision, and hearing–as well as in primary motor regions of the cerebral cortex. In the last trimester, fetuses are capable of simple forms of learning, like habituating (decreasing their startle response) to a repeated auditory stimulus, such as a loud clap just outside the mother’s abdomen. Late-term fetuses also seem to learn about the sensory qualities of the womb, since several studies have shown that newborn babies respond to familiar odors (such as their own amniotic fluid) and sounds (such as a maternal heartbeat or their own mother’s voice). In spite of these rather sophisticated abilities, babies enter the world with a still-primitive cerebral cortex, and it is the gradual maturation of this complex part of the brain that explains much of their emotional and cognitive maturation in the first few years of life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Here's something simple, and much less steps for you: IF something is capable of suffering, THEN it will have moral value
That is the bare bones of my ethics:
Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Incorrect, you have made a disputable claim - thus you have the necessary burden of proof. Provide that proof or I have no reason to accept your claim. It's as simple as that. That's basic epistemology, nothing more, nothing less.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would argue that there is a distinction - you are correct that "objective" things are technically dependent on internal reasoning; however, if you were to go off the preponderance of evidence our senses are accurate more times than they are not. Therefore it would be reasonable to presume there to be a physical universe with things as we observe them.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I could care less what nihilist think, if something is either a or b, and it is not a, then it is b. Furthermore, we've already had this discussion twice and I have not gotten satisfactory answers either time from you, in fact, you didn't even fully address my syllogism
Created:
-->
@Tarik
If objective morality does not exist, then subjective morality defacto does - if the morality isn't true independent of the mind, then it is defintionally true being dependent on the mind. That's how that works, furthermore - you never proved a point - I got tired of your nonanswers.
Created:
Posted in:
Just for you anti-abortionist "Aha! Theweakeredge believes that suffering mandates morality, therefore fetuses have moral consideration!" False. The majority of abortions, over 90% of which, happen at 13 weeks or before. Whereas fetus only feel pain around 20 weeks; where less than 1% of abortions occur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Well yeah - you only have the right to vote whenever your 18, that's an acquired trait, aging, you only have the right to drive after you pass a test. You only have a right to college education if you have a certain score on a test, what guarantees moral consideration in my opinion, is the ability to suffer and contemplate that suffering, or at the very least comprehend it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Mm, I would agree, except for having selective morality, or at the very least I try not to have it - though obviously, some biases are stronger than my principles. Furthermore, selective morality is exactly what justifies animal cruelty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Give me evidence and I won't ignore you answers because they wouldn't be non-answers.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Done that two or three times by now
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
If you attributed all of the acts of god in the old testament to jesus then mostly yeah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No, "in other words" means "ignoring your bullshit non-answers"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Whose moral system am I using? Gods ironically - its a simple logical statement - very basic - IF something has value THEN you have obligations to it. According to the bible god made us with value, perhaps less than himself, but value nonetheless, and that value was moral in nature therefore: IF god made us with inherent value, THEN he has a moral obligation to protect us. I'm surprise someone as "logical" as you don't understand such a simple ethical concept. Protect from anything - protect from himself, all of the above. He would have a moral obligation to human kind. One that he does not fulfill according to the bible. As for the next response "are you a robot or do you have free will" Incorrect - to god - we do not. You see, according to the bible - god is on another plane from us - he knows everything, he knows what will happen he knows every "choice" we will make before we make it, therefore if he choose to make us one way that then that would lead to certain "choices" and if he made us another way it would lead to different "choices" God would have all of the control, so no, if you believe in the biblical god - you do not have free-will from god. God made adam and eve knowing for an absolute fact that they would disobey him, because he made them ignorant and curious.... but also, BECAUSE HE CAN QUITE LITERALLY SEE THE FUTURE. Evil is something which happens to material, thus if there is no material there is no evil - though if we keep with your light and shade example: photons are material, and shade is simple something blocking the photons before they get to their destination - evil is the actual opposite of evil, another force, not simply the absense of god - therefore that is a false analogy. "That's gibberish" cool story, give me a proper rebbutal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I was going off of the assumption that we value human well-being, because if we forget that assumption, then no, no human life has value technically. However, as you are a human you I know for a fact that you value well-being. Regardless of your position.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
First of all, a lot of non-sequiturs; particularly premise 2, 3, and 4 - furthermore, no, I do not think that morals are expressed in "commands" they are expressed in obligation - which are distinct. Second, I don't think objective morality exists, prove that it does and then we can get talking
Just as an example of your non-sequiturs though some moral commands by human authority is bad therefore its all bad? What?! That's like claiming that because some machines don't work, no machines work - it just doesn't logically follow at all.
Finally... most of it is assuming, a lot, especially in the later premises, with no justifications. I could probably go waaay further in depth, but I don't particularly have the inclination right this second. I don't find this argument very compelling, and honestly the kalam was stronger than this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I actually agree with that - I think very few things are always wrong, there are some things which are of course intrinsically wrong, but lying definitely isn't one of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
I haven't seen one of Wagyu's argument which was coherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No - you don't understand the point of me bringing that up - you can be morally responsible for not doing an action - that was my point. IF you agree that you should not do something, THEN you agree that you should stop someone from doing that thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can hold someone legally culpable for not doing a physical action, or I suppose that not feeding your children just isn't wrong? Because that's the logical conclusion that your argument leads to, if someone could never be responsible for something they didn't do, then I suppose its fine to not feed your children, or provide them doctor appointments or anything of the sorts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
all mental processes are physical process, there is no meaningful difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, it is relevant, as I said last time, your claim that it was an ad hominem was irrelevant the "ad hominem" itself was relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't care for red herrings, address the issue at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
choosing to not do something is an action into itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your acknowledgement of an ad hominem is irrelevant, and I had addressed the argument already, therefore it actually isn't an ad hominem, furthermore its the "ad hominem" is relevant because it accurately describes your behavior, and thus should be considered in a lack of answering questions. Even with all the time writing out a debate I made you have failed to address all of my points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you have copied my response and pasted it back, explain what it demonstrates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes.. the name is slightly off base; however its inference is still accurate, and your citation does not change that - next - we are talking about a basis of reasonability which this does not address. You have not addressed the central point of my objection curious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think I will. I was very specific in the paragraph leading to that question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that this is a red herring, furthermore I think that if Superman were to save everybody every second he could he would be mentally run down and therefore physically run down. If he were to use that mentality then he would start to inherenty blame himself as the cause of every death, which would further detract from his abilities. Therefore it is necessary for him to take breaks, to do things like this. everyday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Furthermore you already know how a big of a pet peeve it is of mine of not answering all of my criticisms. You have failed to addressed some of the first things I objected with, furthermore, you have dropped point after point. You have furthermore failed to provide clarification on your position. I asked if you agreed with the other statements, the ones that you ignored, but you have not responded.
Do you or do you not agree with the points which you have dropped?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you agree or disagree with this conditional statement?
In some cases I would agree in others I would disagree. As I already told you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
YOU CAN NEVER BE HELD MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EVENT YOU DID NOT CAUSE. [POST#6]
Did you fail to read the entire post? But honestly your selective reading is not the problem here, notice a word here: "NEVER", thus you were not addressing the trolley problem specifically, but the trolley problem was simply a example of a general claim which you made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
If that attack is not used to justify the belief or disbelief of a proposition then I could care less. It is not relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Wrong, there are actually machines which can depict, with general accuracy, whether someone is lying or not. It is not unreasonable for the thought that a criminal might lie, thus, it is entirely justifiable that you siimply not believe the criminal and thus not be responsible if that criminal is lying; however, there are clear exceptions to this, if you know this criminal is more likely to be killers than not, this does not apply
Futhermore that was not my only point regarding that situation, do you care to acknowledge those?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Was he aware of them? No. Does Superman actually have to use the restroom... nope, he doesn't need to eat, as his body can work with photosynthesis alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And I'd say (IFF) you're thrust unexpectedly into a time-sensitive situation where you apparently have the ability to choose who lives and who dies without knowing who might be a saint and who might be a heinous criminal (THEN) you can be absolved for not taking action on severely limited information.
That is not what you claimed
You claimed that you could not be morally responsible if you commited no action. Until now you did not specify that you were referring to the trolley problem exclusively, in fact, it seems reasonable to interpret your words as specifically to general moral law.
Furthermore, I already covered this, next, nothing in this specific trolley problem means that it is time sensitive, just that the people cannot escape and that you have the choice. And you would be slightly responsible, to a much less degree then if the specific interactions were not true.
You are moving the goal posts now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If he had the power to stop it and did not, then yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you directly cause an action you have the most fault, if you help the action then you have some fault, if you let the action happen then you have less fault - the point is they all have fault - there is no need for any complex systems here, just basic cause and effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're saying that considering the fact that a CRIMINAL may be lying is "telling the future"? Your dishonest analogies are getting a little old. Did you ignore every other point in that? Or do you accept the other points, if that is the case, then the preponderance of evidence would point to you being wrong.
Created: