I know the implications of what you said even if you don't. It is obvious that if someone accepts the proposition that everyone has their own set of morals then you can't criticize them for any of their actions. Presumably they are doing the right thing in their own mind. If you did criticize them you would then be attempting to impose your morals on them. Now unless I am wrong that is something you claim that people shouldn't do.
you know what I implied? Like I said, you can read minds? do you do parties?
you know what I implied? Like I said, you can read minds? do you do parties?
I can read what you said and see where it leads. It has nothing to do with reading minds. Just admit you have been caught espousing dumbshit and move on.
It is apparent you don't. It has nothing to do with reading minds. Here is a general definition of implied: involved, suggested, or understood without being openly or directly expressed. Now the word I used was implication. That word means: something implied, from which an inference may be drawn. Now inference means: the deriving of a conclusion in logic by either induction or deduction or a conclusion arrived at in logic. Now for any simpletons reading this to infer means: to conclude or decide from something known or assumed; derive by reasoning; draw as a conclusion. That is what I have done. I read your posts and concluded that the logical result is that you either don't mean what you said or that you are a hypocrite.
What if someone takes the life of a born child? Can we force our morality and views about that on them? What is the difference?
depends on whether you respect someone else's morals
So are you saying that if this person's morals say it is alright to kill a born child for any reason that we should just stand aside and respect those morals?
Have you got an answer yet for how a fetus cannot have a separate identity from the mother before birth, but yet have different DNA, hair color, blood type, etc. while still in the womb?
So are you saying that if this person's morals say it is alright to kill a born child for any reason that we should just stand aside and respect those morals?
So are you saying that if this person's morals say it is alright to kill a born child for any reason that we should just stand aside and respect those morals?
yes but like I said, the death of any sentient person would outweigh the joy/pleasure/happiness experienced by those who "benefited" from those deaths
You don't know that.
there are no absolutes. Just because someone acts in an immoral way does not mean they think they are acting morally
How can you even assert that they are acting immorally? There are no absolutes so they may just be acting morally in their view. And of course that is all that seems to matter to you because morality is all relative. You apparently want to impose your morality on others.
I know the implications of what you said even if you don't. It is obvious that if someone accepts the proposition that everyone has their own set of morals then you can't criticize them for any of their actions. Presumably they are doing the right thing in their own mind. If you did criticize them you would then be attempting to impose your morals on them. Now unless I am wrong that is something you claim that people shouldn't do.
you know what I implied? Like I said, you can read minds? do you do parties?
you know what I implied? Like I said, you can read minds? do you do parties?
I can read what you said and see where it leads. It has nothing to do with reading minds. Just admit you have been caught espousing dumbshit and move on.
You claimed to know what I had implied.
Do you know what implied means?
Do you know what implied means?
It is apparent you don't. It has nothing to do with reading minds. Here is a general definition of implied: involved, suggested, or understood without being openly or directly expressed. Now the word I used was implication. That word means: something implied, from which an inference may be drawn. Now inference means: the deriving of a conclusion in logic by either induction or deduction or a conclusion arrived at in logic. Now for any simpletons reading this to infer means: to conclude or decide from something known or assumed; derive by reasoning; draw as a conclusion. That is what I have done. I read your posts and concluded that the logical result is that you either don't mean what you said or that you are a hypocrite.
You made an inference as to what I said.
I implied nothing.
learn the game, padawan
What if someone takes the life of a born child? Can we force our morality and views about that on them? What is the difference?
depends on whether you respect someone else's morals
So are you saying that if this person's morals say it is alright to kill a born child for any reason that we should just stand aside and respect those morals?
Have you got an answer yet for how a fetus cannot have a separate identity from the mother before birth, but yet have different DNA, hair color, blood type, etc. while still in the womb?
So are you saying that if this person's morals say it is alright to kill a born child for any reason that we should just stand aside and respect those morals?
That is not what I am saying at all.
Then what are you saying?
neither absolute relativism nor absolutism are sound theories
utilitarianism
utilitarianism
What if your pursuit of happiness causes me pain?
if the resulting happiness is greater than the resulting pain, I should do it
Uh huh.
I think they have a word for that. Sociopath comes to mind.
heh-heh. JT nails it!
it's simple mathematics.
It makes moral decisions as objective as possible
What exactly is the formula for that?
Do you have a spreadsheet or something?
collective happiness pleasure>collective pain=moral
I implied nothing.
You did but you are too dumb to know it. The implications of your position are clear to anyone that has not dedicated themselves to denying the truth.
So are you saying that if this person's morals say it is alright to kill a born child for any reason that we should just stand aside and respect those morals?
That is not what I am saying at all.
It is what you are saying, Demon.
I think they have a word for that. Sociopath comes to mind.
Yes indeed, JT. I have came to the same conclusion about Demon.
collective happiness pleasure>collective pain=moral
So if it makes us collectively happy to rid the world of utilitarianists, it's morally justifiable?
I think you're on to something.
NOT
thank for intentionally misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and misconstruing what I have said.
The last bastion of a desperate person
So if it makes us collectively happy to rid the world of utilitarianists, it's morally justifiable?
yes, but keep in mind, you have the death of utilitarians, which far outweighs any happiness any group could feel for those deaths.
you also have to take into account all the collective pain of those affected by that action
thank for intentionally misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and misconstruing what I have said.
No, Demon, we understand. You simply don't understand the implications of your "morality."
yes, but keep in mind, you have the death of utilitarians, which far outweighs any happiness any group could feel for those deaths.
Want to bet?
so killing people makes you happy?
and you have the audacity to question my morals?
too funny
yes, but keep in mind, you have the death of utilitarians, which far outweighs any happiness any group could feel for those deaths.
How does that work out for abortion than? Do the deaths of the unborn outweigh any happiness that any group feels?
yes, but keep in mind, you have the death of utilitarians, which far outweighs any happiness any group could feel for those deaths.
Says you!
:-)
you also have to take into account all the collective pain of those affected by that action
I'm just using it as an example.
Sometimes it would make the majority happy to rid themselves of the minority.
depending on when the unborn gains consciousness to understand what is happening
You were the one that said people have their own morals.
Sometimes it would make the majority happy to rid themselves of the minority.
yes but like I said, the deah of any sentient person would outweigh the joy/pleasure/happiness experienced by those who "benefitted" from those deaths
Remember in your view there is no absolutes so there may be many people that think the death of utilitarians is just grand.
there are no absolutes. Just because someone acts in an immoral way does not mean they think they are acting morally
depending on when the unborn gains consciousness to understand what is happening
In your world why does it matter? It isn't any of your business only the mothers.
yes but like I said, the death of any sentient person would outweigh the joy/pleasure/happiness experienced by those who "benefited" from those deaths
You don't know that.
there are no absolutes. Just because someone acts in an immoral way does not mean they think they are acting morally
How can you even assert that they are acting immorally? There are no absolutes so they may just be acting morally in their view. And of course that is all that seems to matter to you because morality is all relative. You apparently want to impose your morality on others.
yes but like I said, the deah of any sentient person would outweigh the joy/pleasure/happiness experienced by those who "benefitted" from those deaths
Uh, we don't know that.
Uh, we don't know that.
in most cases, we do.
How can you even assert that they are acting immorally?
if they are acting immorally by their own standards
There are no absolutes so they may just be acting morally in their view
yes, and they just as well may be acting immorally
And of course that is all that seems to matter to you because morality is all relative
no, not all relative, I already said absolute relativism is flawed
You apparently want to impose your morality on others.
I wish no such thing
in most cases, we do.
How can you say this? Please validate.
Uh, we don't know that.
in most cases, we do.
That is just a remnant of absolute morality showing through.
There are no absolutes so they may just be acting morally in their view
yes, and they just as well may be acting immorally
No in your world there is no morality or immorality.
to say otherwise is to trivialize death
That is just a remnant of absolute morality showing through.
no, using most instead of all saves me from that
No in your world there is no morality or immorality.
yes there is, and I have told you this many times.
you just argue yourslef in a circle
to say otherwise is to trivialize death
That didn't answer my question.
Is there an exception to your formula?
Is there an exception to your formula?
you can use the case in point of killing Hitler
you can use the case in point of killing Hitler
Huh? Hitler killed himself.
hypothetically speaking
a utilitarian would be justified in killing Hitler because it would result in the pleasure/happiness (read:survival) of millions of sentient people
your "utilitarian" garbage disregards the rights of the individual.
I believe more in the greater good.
a utilitarian would be justified in killing Hitler because it would result in the pleasure/happiness (read:survival) of millions of sentient people
Killing one million utilitarian may bring pleasure to ten million non-utilitarians.
I believe more in the greater good.
One thing you're missing: Individual rights is the greater good.
to say otherwise is to trivialize death
Death? So what it is meaningless.
your "utilitarian" garbage disregards the rights of the individual.
I think crabs is defending Hitler's right to live!
I believe more in the greater good.
Don't be trying to impose your morailty on me.