Quotebut killing in war is apparently okay to some, while to others it isn't. And some people don't believe in evolution.
but killing in war is apparently okay to some, while to others it isn't.
Quote from: spewky bewgie on September 24, 2015, 03:23:29 PMCan you test them in a scientific lab to say "Person A's morals are the correct ones?"Yes, if you identify the best basis for morality.
Can you test them in a scientific lab to say "Person A's morals are the correct ones?"
Evolution, or at least micro-evolution, is something that can be, and has been, observed. And while extensive evolution (Such as humans evolving from ape-like ancestors) has not been viewed by scientists, skeletal remains do show this.
Just because people don't believe in gravity, doesn't mean it isn't true. Science is absolutes - morals are not.
Quote from: Carsonogen on September 24, 2015, 03:25:12 PMQuote from: Meta as Fuck on September 24, 2015, 03:24:24 PMQuote from: Carsonogen on September 24, 2015, 03:21:58 PMSurprise birthday parties are a light example. If someone makes it known they don't want them, but it still happens, that's definitely immoral.In that way, it's more of an implied consent.Is pulling a depressed person back from the ledge just before they jump immoral?Of course. You have no right to stop them.And this is why your form of morality is the most retarded fucking thing I've ever come across. It's entirely possible for people to be incorrect about what would be in their own interests--suicide being perhaps the most important example.
Quote from: Meta as Fuck on September 24, 2015, 03:24:24 PMQuote from: Carsonogen on September 24, 2015, 03:21:58 PMSurprise birthday parties are a light example. If someone makes it known they don't want them, but it still happens, that's definitely immoral.In that way, it's more of an implied consent.Is pulling a depressed person back from the ledge just before they jump immoral?Of course. You have no right to stop them.
Quote from: Carsonogen on September 24, 2015, 03:21:58 PMSurprise birthday parties are a light example. If someone makes it known they don't want them, but it still happens, that's definitely immoral.In that way, it's more of an implied consent.Is pulling a depressed person back from the ledge just before they jump immoral?
Surprise birthday parties are a light example. If someone makes it known they don't want them, but it still happens, that's definitely immoral.In that way, it's more of an implied consent.
Quote from: Meta as Fuck on September 24, 2015, 03:25:04 PMQuote from: spewky bewgie on September 24, 2015, 03:23:29 PMCan you test them in a scientific lab to say "Person A's morals are the correct ones?"Yes, if you identify the best basis for morality.Explain.
You have no obligation to continue existing, period.
Quote from: spewky bewgie on September 24, 2015, 03:26:09 PMEvolution, or at least micro-evolution, is something that can be, and has been, observed. And while extensive evolution (Such as humans evolving from ape-like ancestors) has not been viewed by scientists, skeletal remains do show this.Just to point this out: there's literally no difference between micro- and macro-evolution. Creationists pretty much invented the concept to give themselves some wiggle room when the science began buttfucking them.
QuoteJust because people don't believe in gravity, doesn't mean it isn't true. Science is absolutes - morals are not. My point was that disagreements do not prove subjectivity.
So, humans are the only species that have morals?
MWhat people in western culture believe (Such as democracy) is different than what people in African or East Asian cultures believe. Some people believe that killing is never allowed, while others believe it should only be in war or self defense. The scenario's go on and on - homosexuality, drug use, abortions, finances, etc.Who is right in any of these scenarios? Can you test them in a scientific lab to say "Person A's morals are the correct ones?"
If a dictatorship and democratic nation both were successful, it's people happy and prosperous, which is morally correct?
Quote from: Carsonogen on September 24, 2015, 03:28:06 PMYou have no obligation to continue existing, period.I didn't say anybody did; we're talking about a mental illness. Should we section some schizophrenics or psychopaths on the basis that they have a heightened capacity to commit violence?
Not everyone who commits suicide has a mental illness.
If you have a condition like psychopathy or schizophrenia, I would consider you unable to give consent.
Because you're not in your right mind.
Because you're not in your right mind. If I developed a condition like that at some point, I wouldn't want the decisions I make in that state to be used as my official will.
Quote from: Carsonogen on September 24, 2015, 03:35:50 PMBecause you're not in your right mind.You mean like a depressed person? Nevertheless, psychopaths often are in their right mind. They aren't legally insane, and psychopathy is egosyntonic practically by definition.
If people were in "their right mind," no one would ever have children.
LOL
Quote from: aDUMBgenius on September 24, 2015, 03:46:52 PMLOLPot-smokers should be shot eight octillion times in the face.
I'm having a hard time understanding why.
Quote from: Prime Uta on September 24, 2015, 05:23:08 PMI'm having a hard time understanding why.afaik, the only reason you'd want to is if you'd want to reduce sexual pleasure, normally as a deterrent
Cultural relativism is so fucking retarded.As a moral objectivist, it is not my job to tell you who is "right" in these scenarios.My inability to do so does not preclude the existence of moral facts.
Quote from: Fuddy-duddy on September 24, 2015, 03:30:28 PMCultural relativism is so fucking retarded.As a moral objectivist, it is not my job to tell you who is "right" in these scenarios.My inability to do so does not preclude the existence of moral facts.My experience with the types of moral objectivism is limited and it's been a while since I studied any of them for one reason or another. If you are unable to identify any moral facts, that distinguishes you as being morally agnostic; however, does being in this state not, in itself, essentially require you to function as a moral relativist?
Quote from: Meta as Fuck on September 24, 2015, 08:32:44 AMOf course there's no mention of who is actually doing this from the BBC.I mean I think we all have a pretty good ideaSpoiler
Of course there's no mention of who is actually doing this from the BBC.
Quote from: Tsirist on September 24, 2015, 05:40:35 PMQuote from: Fuddy-duddy on September 24, 2015, 03:30:28 PMCultural relativism is so fucking retarded.As a moral objectivist, it is not my job to tell you who is "right" in these scenarios.My inability to do so does not preclude the existence of moral facts.My experience with the types of moral objectivism is limited and it's been a while since I studied any of them for one reason or another. If you are unable to identify any moral facts, that distinguishes you as being morally agnostic; however, does being in this state not, in itself, essentially require you to function as a moral relativist?How do you mean "function" as a moral relativist?
NHS uncovers 1,000 female genital mutilation cases in the UK, April-June
