Reply With Quote
...
An honest answer to an easy question, thank you. It is better to be alive than dead.
That is the first step in the road to moral reasoning, i.e. an acknowledgment of something we can all determine and usually agree on.
The world is a place where we all live in societies. Like it or not, we are dependent on each other to some degree or another.
Personally, I would rather be fired than follow an order to directly endanger people's lives. The harm to me, i.e. loss of income, is objectively less than the potential harm to the people who are depending on me to do the right thing.
Life is not always easy, but this seems pretty straightforward by any measure.
...
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-21-2017 at 05:25 PM. Reason: derp.
What would you have done when dock security told you that you could not board passengers that were not on the manifest?
You don't need my opinion for an objective proof. Show your proof. It doesn't matter who shares your opinion, it's still subjective.
The only other people I have seen work so hard on not answering an honest question are conspiracy idiots. Congratulations, you get to stand in the corner with Cosmored.
We need to agree on reality. If you are so far detached from reality that you can't tell alive from dead or figure out which of those two states is preferable, that is your problem, not mine.
Is life generally preferable to death in most cir stances?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-22-2017 at 09:44 AM.
My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no, not "look at my videos".
Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?
Good lord cosmored is pathetic.
Seriously.
Everyone knows they weren't faked. The Russians beat us to the moon by 5 years, but that was suppressed on Illuminati orders and the Muricans were allowed to be "the first" on the moon to get everyone to buy into the power and glory of capitalism.
It's also that he's bringing this moonbat crazy into this thread.
Is life generally preferable to death in most cir stances?
Not a trick question. I hope it is easy for you.
I bet it was fun as to golf on the moon.
Except for the bulky space suit, yeah, a 2000 yard drive would be fun
Eyup.
When one is carrying on a discussion and you find someone doing the same evasive things that he is, that should be a huge red flag.
You didn't ask me about reality but my preference. What the does my preference have to do with whether or not morality is objective?
I can't tell you what's generally preferred since I can only speak for myself and it doesn't matter if people prefer fish or chicken it doesn't mean taste is objective.
The term generally means it's not objective.
No. You're bat crazy
You tell'em Cosmo
Keep up the good work and eventually the sheeple will wake up.
At least we agree on something.
Serious question. How do I apply for a paid sophist job?
Does it have bennies? If so, I'm in!
The sun generally rises in the east. Clouds generally proceed rain. Both sun rises and rain are objective things that can be readily, and independently ascertained.
You spend a lot of effort not answering this question, just like Cosmored spends a lot of effort dodging, easy, honest, and fair, questions.
It's almost as if being honest isn't important to either of you. If your beliefs are so weak, they can't withstand honest query, that says volumes about whether anyone else should give a about your opinion, any more than anyone here cares about "faked moon landings"
I'll make it even easier and shorter. Maybe that will help.
My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no.
Is life generally preferable to death?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-28-2017 at 01:07 PM.
My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no, not "look at my videos".
Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?
The problem here is you're trying to demonstrate that morality is objective but in doing so you're asking me for my opinion. An objective truth doesn't need my opinion. If my opinion is the deciding factor then that makes it subjective by default.
In fact, the term "generally" implies not always. If morality was objective we would not need to use the term "generally" because it would always be true.
So, basically, you are the Cosmored of moral reasoning. You can't determine whether living is better than dying.
Got it.
"IF X, then Y" If morality was objective (X), [then] we would not need to use the term "generally" because it would always be true. (Y)
It is possible to determine things objectively, and use the term "generally". Clouds generally precede rain. Lions generally live in Africa. Humans generally don't survive falls from five story buildings. I have given you situations were reality can both be objectively determined [X], but the term "generally" is needed, because they are NOT always true. [Y]
Each of these statements are statements of observable facts about the universe. We need to use the term "generally" to allow for the probabilistic aspects of the universe.
Your assertion is rejected on that basis.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-29-2017 at 09:41 AM.
You don't understand the definition of the term objective and you certainly don't understand the implications of having objective morality. If objective morality exists then there's a right and wrong even if everyone on the planet disagrees with it. That means there's a divine edict dictating right and wrong.
You really need to more clearly define your terms. I think you're being wishy-washy about it and trying to use the term objective to mean generally agreed upon.
You're also confusing a philosophical question with a scientific one. Morality is a philosophical question not a scientific one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
