User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-01-19 at 2 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Those things are objective measurements, but not objective measurements of goodness or badness.
Well the case hasn't been made yet that those things are or aren't a measure of goodness or badness, in the same way that the case for the reading of a voltmeter being a measurement of voltage hasn't been made yet. But if we could connect these objective measurements to morality then we'd have a case for there being an objective measurement of morality, wouldn't we? -
2019-01-19 at 2:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietPiano That is full of holes. Why is it good? Who is it good for?
There is no hole. You asked what I think "morality" is, I told you. Specifically it's a statement of fact with a truth value (remember back to what that term means) rather than a mere opinion. I've said myself, I haven't given you a reason why particular actions are moral and others aren't. Or even why any moral statement is true. I've been talking about the terminological issue, what is meant when moral realists talk about the term "morality". We have to mutually understand what "morality" even means before I can give you any meaningful justification for the morality of particular claims. -
2019-01-19 at 2:18 AM UTCPhilosophy is a synonym for regurgitation
-
2019-01-19 at 5:56 AM UTC
-
2019-01-19 at 4:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Well the case hasn't been maid yet that those things are or aren't a measure of goodness or badness, in the same way that the case for the reading of a voltmeter being a measurement of voltage hasn't been made yet. But if we could connect these objective measurements to morality then we'd have a case for there being an objective measurement of morality, wouldn't we?
I thought that's what you have been attempting to do. If you are admitting we have no reason to treat those things as objective measurements of goodness and badness, I think my case is closed. -
2019-01-20 at 11:41 AM UTC
-
2019-01-20 at 11:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny There is no hole. You asked what I think "morality" is, I told you. Specifically it's a statement of fact with a truth value (remember back to what that term means) rather than a mere opinion. I've said myself, I haven't given you a reason why particular actions are moral and others aren't. Or even why any moral statement is true. I've been talking about the terminological issue, what is meant when moral realists talk about the term "morality". We have to mutually understand what "morality" even means before I can give you any meaningful justification for the morality of particular claims.
That's why you have struggled in this thread. Morality is not based on fact it is based on opinion. -
2019-01-20 at 11:42 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-01-21 at 1:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock tore off lanny the trannys granny panties to give him a whammy in his faggy saggy fanny, made him say 'spank me daddy' and gave him to a nappy picaninny to be his cock jockey 'moral obligation' is nothing more than another in a long line of newspeak terms that the mentally deficient are trying to force onto the language and thought patterns of the sane people.
merry christmas
no. just wait for my article. -
2019-01-21 at 1:52 AM UTC
-
2019-01-22 at 7:55 PM UTClanny, did you saw something like this and suddenly came to the conclusion that meats are bad ?
-
2019-01-23 at 2:52 AM UTCNo, I appreciate why the undercover footage stuff is important but I never found it particularly compelling. I think Singer's writing is in better taste than trying to game people for sympathy.
-
2019-01-23 at 3:33 AM UTC
-
2019-01-23 at 3:43 AM UTC
-
2019-01-23 at 3:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny lmgtfy.com/?q=singer+animal+rights
yea, but his writtings dont reveal the extent of suffering that these animals went thru. -
2019-01-23 at 4:23 AM UTCI don't get it?
-
2019-01-23 at 4:34 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-01-23 at 4:58 AM UTC
-
2019-01-27 at 5:10 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-01-27 at 8:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Which things? Actions? Actions are either good or bad, their status as such is not a matter of opinion. That doesn't mean something like "injecting a person with insulin" is either always good or always bad, obviously that's dependent on the circumstance, but acts like "injecting Fred with insulin yesterday shortly after lunch" have a definite status as morally permissible or not, contingent on whether Fred needed it and your authority to administer the drug and other circumstantial facts.
Good for whom?
Perhaps it is good for fred, but not good for someone with less money in the case of an insulin shortage. Which is a true threat given how expensive it is.
So you're saying an action is either good or bad, but for whom? Everyone, or less than everyone(depending on the circumstances)?
The former would imply that actions are universally good or bad, and the latter would imply that actions may be only referentially good or bad (but not necessarily in every case).
