User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-01-01 at 4:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny it seems to me like what yoir reffering to is more like a moral hypothesis, and if your ignorant enough, you can call it a moral theory.
but it is still lightyears away from beimg a moral fact.
this is a fact.
Stop impersonating people coothill. You suck ass at it -
2019-01-01 at 4:39 PM UTCAlso your agruments with lanny are a waste of time, as you appear to be unable to understand his fairly simple explanations to you
-
2019-01-01 at 4:48 PM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 8:25 PM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 8:29 PM UTCCoothill was a §m£ÂgØL alt.
-
2019-01-01 at 8:30 PM UTCIncorrect
-
2019-01-01 at 8:38 PM UTC
-
2019-01-01 at 9:14 PM UTC
-
2019-01-02 at 2:07 AM UTC
-
2019-01-02 at 3:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Nope. You might want to see that thread about alt paranoia. Benny's been with us since before coothill was a thing.
im not benny.
Originally posted by DietPiano That's not benny
thank you.
Originally posted by GGG You can tell because he uses google translate for his Chinese. Guy is not Asian whatsoever. Just posts direct English to Chinese grammar lmfao.
-
2019-01-02 at 3:48 AM UTCMorals?
wtf is that-nowadays? -
2019-01-02 at 1:03 PM UTC
-
2019-01-02 at 2:53 PM UTC
-
2019-01-02 at 4:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny To summarize: I take issue with claims like "what is right(moral facts) is a matter of opinion" which you seem to champion here. This is a misunderstanding of what is meant by "right" or "moral facts". You can understand what is meant by the term without holding there are any true moral facts. By analogy, somebody might say "facts about phlogiston are a matter of opinion" and this would be a similar misunderstanding. Presumably we agree that there is no true positive fact as to the color of phlogiston, since it doesn't exist, but we can pretty easily say there is a truth value to statements like "phlogiston is green" or "phlogiston exists".
I don't ask that you agree that any particular moral fact is true, but there is no point trying to justify a particular moral fact (i.e. that we that shouldn't eat meat) if you refuse to acknowledge what the term "moral fact" signifies in any such justification.
I don't agree with labelling moral conclusions as "moral facts". I don't agree with labelling both true or false statements as "fact"; rather, a fact is true or it is not a fact at all. If Ubik does not exist it doesn't make sense to label the statement "Ubik is red" as a fact. Rather the statement "Ubik is red" is an expression of how the speaker imagines Ubik. It is their imagination, their opinion.
Statements like "X is immoral" are also not facts. The statement "X is immoral" may be consistent with the speakers moral framework, or not, but as long as morality is just something people imagine it has nothing to do with facts.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-01-02 at 6:33 PM UTC
-
2019-01-02 at 7:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I've never suggested doing as much. Maybe you should reread the post you quoted.
You are labelling moral statements as "moral facts", and go on to say these "moral facts" have either a positive or negative "truth value". I don't agree with using the word fact in this way; a fact is true or it is not a fact at all. -
2019-01-02 at 8:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe You are labelling moral statements as "moral facts", and go on to say these "moral facts" have either a positive or negative "truth value". I don't agree with using the word fact in this way; a fact is true or it is not a fact at all
I think Lanny conceives of morality as a branch of logic, more or less the same as mathematics. In the same way as you can have a logical fact you can have a mathematical fact, and a moral fact. Why is that approach wrong? -
2019-01-02 at 10:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth I think Lanny conceives of morality as a branch of logic, more or less the same as mathematics. In the same way as you can have a logical fact you can have a mathematical fact, and a moral fact. Why is that approach wrong?
What is logical is not always what is true, and math is not reality it is an approximation of reality. Moral statements are nonmaterial and do not appear to be accessible to empirical investigation. Moral statements cannot be observed in the same way as material facts (which are objective), so it seems odd to count them in the same category.
I've seen no reason to treat morality as something objective. The system will compel us to act the way it wants us to act and whether we think our actions are moral or immoral doesn't really matter, in the same way that it doesn't really matter if we think our actions are freely willed or not. -
2019-01-02 at 11:16 PM UTCWhat is true is true because it is logical
-
2019-01-03 at 12:08 AM UTC
