User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-01-03 at 3:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe You are labelling moral statements as "moral facts"
No, I'm not doing that, I think you have misunderstood what I'm saying quite badly. There are many moral statements, clearly. Some or none of them may be facts. Whether any moral statement is true, or any particular statement is true, is a fact, not a mere matter of opinion.
Originally posted by Obbe 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.
Numbers are not "observable" in any physical sense, but presumably you'd agree with statements like "7 is a prime number". Physical observability has never been necessary condition for statements having truth values. -
2019-01-03 at 5:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny No, I'm not doing that, I think you have misunderstood what I'm saying quite badly. There are many moral statements, clearly. Some or none of them may be facts. Whether any moral statement is true, or any particular statement is true, is a fact, not a mere matter of opinion.
thats not how my dicktionary defines 'fact'.Numbers are not "observable" in any physical sense, but presumably you'd agree with statements like "7 is a prime number". Physical observability has never been necessary condition for statements having truth values.
but statememts having truth values can be rendered out in physical forms to be observeable.
empirically. -
2019-01-03 at 8:58 AM UTC
-
2019-01-03 at 12:08 PM UTC
-
2019-01-04 at 12:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny No, I'm not doing that, I think you have misunderstood what I'm saying quite badly. There are many moral statements, clearly. Some or none of them may be facts. Whether any moral statement is true, or any particular statement is true, is a fact, not a mere matter of opinion.
Numbers are not "observable" in any physical sense, but presumably you'd agree with statements like "7 is a prime number". Physical observability has never been necessary condition for statements having truth values.
Some moral statements will be logically consistent with your moral framework, and some will not be. Whether other people actually agree with your moral framework is a matter of opinion. Your moral framework exists only within your imagination and doesn't tell us anything about objective reality. -
2019-01-04 at 12:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Some moral statements will be logically consistent with your moral framework, and some will not be. Whether other people actually agree with your moral framework is a matter of opinion. Your moral framework exists only within your imagination and doesn't tell us anything about objective reality.
In my moral system, you can make axiomatic statements that would apply to any possible moral agent of any sort, by logical necessity. Could you call that an objective moral truth? -
2019-01-04 at 12:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by Loing In my moral system, you can make axiomatic statements that would apply to any possible moral agent of any sort, by logical necessity. Could you call that an objective moral truth?
Lol seems like a symptom of the problem we have proof of what is happening in the world is skewed by the same logic -
2019-01-04 at 1:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Your moral framework exists only within your imagination and doesn't tell us anything about objective reality.
My moral framework in particular, or all moral frameworks? If you deny the existence of factual moral statements as a category then that's a pretty strong position I think you'll need a better defense of than "moral frameworks are imaginary because I say so". -
2019-01-04 at 1:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe 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.
Maths is a set of rules and logic, and doesn't need to have anything to do with material things, as in pure mathematics. The universe has logical rules that exist by themselves and are objectively true, and they don't need to be obvious, related to material things, or even testable to be true. -
2019-01-04 at 1:15 AM UTC
-
2019-01-04 at 2:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny My moral framework in particular, or all moral frameworks? If you deny the existence of factual moral statements as a category then that's a pretty strong position I think you'll need a better defense of than "moral frameworks are imaginary because I say so".
Moral frameworks are imaginary because you said so. -
2019-01-04 at 2:22 AM UTC
-
2019-01-04 at 2:35 AM UTCOh you guys still haven’t finished this argument? Still trying to determine what constitutes morality? It’s only taken you asshats all of 2018 to try and figure it out. Maybe 2019 will be better.
-
2019-01-04 at 3:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny My moral framework in particular, or all moral frameworks? If you deny the existence of factual moral statements as a category then that's a pretty strong position I think you'll need a better defense of than "moral frameworks are imaginary because I say so".
Facts about vitalist medicine like chiropractics are facts within their framework e.g., adjusting the spine will cause the body to heal itself because perfect alignment of the spine causes overall health to improve. However, vitalism is a pseudoscience, and and is only meaningful for those who choose to adopt the fallacy. -
2019-01-04 at 3:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Facts about vitalist medicine like chiropractics are facts within their framework e.g., adjusting the spine will cause the body to heal itself because perfect alignment of the spine causes overall health to improve. However, vitalism is a pseudoscience, and and is only meaningful for those who choose to adopt the fallacy.
What does that have to do with eating meat? -
2019-01-04 at 6:04 AM UTC
-
2019-01-04 at 6:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano Facts about vitalist medicine like chiropractics are facts within their framework e.g., adjusting the spine will cause the body to heal itself because perfect alignment of the spine causes overall health to improve. However, vitalism is a pseudoscience, and and is only meaningful for those who choose to adopt the fallacy.
So you would agree that statements like "adjusting the spine will cause the body to heal itself" have a truth value, and are not a mere matter of opinion, would you not? -
2019-01-04 at 6:11 AM UTCI wonder if
You would agree, would you not?
Or
You wouldn't agree, would you?
is more persuasive in enticing agreement. -
2019-01-04 at 9:39 AM UTCI feel like Lanny and I are trolling ourselves
-
2019-01-04 at 11:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Loing In my moral system, you can make axiomatic statements that would apply to any possible moral agent of any sort, by logical necessity. Could you call that an objective moral truth?
Logical consequences of your imaginary system are logical consequences of your imaginary system. Your imaginary system doesn't tell us anything about the world beyond your imagination.
Originally posted by Lanny My moral framework in particular, or all moral frameworks? If you deny the existence of factual moral statements as a category then that's a pretty strong position I think you'll need a better defense of than "moral frameworks are imaginary because I say so".
You haven't demonstrated any moral system that exists beyond imagination. Moral frameworks aren't imaginary "because I say so," moral frameworks are imaginary because they are imagined.
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth Maths is a set of rules and logic, and doesn't need to have anything to do with material things, as in pure mathematics. The universe has logical rules that exist by themselves and are objectively true, and they don't need to be obvious, related to material things, or even testable to be true.
If all Chulas are Ubik, and all Ubik gets glomped, will all Chulas get glomped? The logical consequence of this scenario is imaginary and tells us nothing about reality.
