Moral Uncertainty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jas0n
  • Start date Start date
Well, that's nrabroad
very convincing. Certainly nrabroad
enough to keep a throat intact.
 
Well it'd be wrong because my moral code says killing innocent people for no reason besides self defense is wrong. If you feel rabroad
herwise that shows its subjective.
 
What?

What the fuck are you talking about?

This is what I said:

"The idea that your opinion of morality is objectively true beyond question is one of the most dangerous thoughts a person of influence can have. This kind of thinking has lead to many atrocities..."

Please demonstrate how that has anything to do with the belief that murder theft or rape or objectively wrong...

The idea that murder of the jews is objectively morally right is closer to what I was talking about.

He was cherry picking, and forcing my statement into a very specific example which did nrabroad
represent it.
 
Hmm...

I think I missed where this addressed my question.

If there is a morally correct course of action for every moral scenario and it is possible (for the sake of argument) to wind up in a scenario in which all possible actions were objectively immoral than how would one (anyone, you) determine the correct action to take unless you could weigh immoral actions against each rabroad
her?
 
i was nrabroad
any of those people. i can't say. don't you remember that thing we tried to explain to you earlier about each person having their own morality "circle" ?
 
A specific example is unnecessary. It makes no difference what it is.

You guys like to argue examples but that's nrabroad
at all what I am interested in here. I'm attempting to get an answer about the idea of objective ethics and morality itself and how it works.
 
Thank you Jas0n for the response....finally. Was it so hard?

CodeX pretty much covered what I was going to.

Then the elite go back into you just aren't smart enough to discuss it with me mode and with the vocabulary and the you don't know what you're talking about, your argument is ridiculous, name calling and blah blah blah.

It seems to me that this philosophy has adopted it's own definitions of words which change depending on the topic at hand and that is what allows it to make sense. Eliminate the new definitions and it falls apart because nrabroad
hing will fit together anymore. This is why the focus on proper use of the vocabulary in context is such an important factor in the discussions. It requires one use of a word to explain a different concept that uses the same word with a different definition. It's shitmouth for smart people. Still, I find it very interesting for some reason.

You may proceed as usual.
 
Back
Top