Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
And if that lead to every child born with a defect being put down for the greater good would you accept that? No, no you wouldn’t, you would say that we hadn’t reached the right “outcome”. And it will never be the right outcome until it meets “your” idea of the right outcome.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
Objective morality will take sophisticated reasoning—since a moral agent must act in situations tht are ill defined, moral decsion making goes to a set of implicit behvioral responses emerging in response to unfolding situations.
Thus, the problem with rules stated as categorical. The 10 commandments are absurd because of their inflxibility—Kant’s impertive is a good place to start.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
Objective morality will take sophisticated reasoning—since a moral agent must act in situations tht are ill defined, moral decsion making goes to a set of implicit behvioral responses emerging in response to unfolding situations.
Thus, the problem with rules stated as categorical. The 10 commandments are absurd because of their inflxibility—Kant’s impertive is a good place to start.
I fixed your quotes for you. In your previous post, you gave me credit for your words…
From reading Parfit, I now believe that although Kant’s basic thrust was brilliant, his work has been beat on pretty hard over the years revealing some holes in his logic.
I believe Parfit’s Kantian revisions have distilled the essence of what Kant was shooting for, and has given his work a new lease on life.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
And if that lead to every child born with a defect being put down for the greater good would you accept that? No, no you wouldn’t, you would say that we hadn’t reached the right “outcome”. And it will never be the right outcome until it meets “your” idea of the right outcome.
You are right, I would not. Of course, killing baby’s is a measurably bad outcome in its self, so your premise has no legs.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
And if that lead to every child born with a defect being put down for the greater good would you accept that? No, no you wouldn’t, you would say that we hadn’t reached the right “outcome”. And it will never be the right outcome until it meets “your” idea of the right outcome.
You are right, I would not. Of course, killing baby’s is a measurably bad outcome in its self, so your premise has no legs.
Then either you lack the courage of your convictions or yours is a position of faith.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
And if that lead to every child born with a defect being put down for the greater good would you accept that? No, no you wouldn’t, you would say that we hadn’t reached the right “outcome”. And it will never be the right outcome until it meets “your” idea of the right outcome.
You are right, I would not. Of course, killing baby’s is a measurably bad outcome in its self, so your premise has no legs.
Then either you lack the courage of your convictions or yours is a position of faith.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
And if that lead to every child born with a defect being put down for the greater good would you accept that? No, no you wouldn’t, you would say that we hadn’t reached the right “outcome”. And it will never be the right outcome until it meets “your” idea of the right outcome.
You are right, I would not. Of course, killing baby’s is a measurably bad outcome in its self, so your premise has no legs.
Then either you lack the courage of your convictions or yours is a position of faith.
Please explain.
You believe your path leads to a better world but won’t follow it if it leads to something you don’t like. The only other option then is faith, faith that it will lead to a better world and it will be one you like.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
And if that lead to every child born with a defect being put down for the greater good would you accept that? No, no you wouldn’t, you would say that we hadn’t reached the right “outcome”. And it will never be the right outcome until it meets “your” idea of the right outcome.
You are right, I would not. Of course, killing baby’s is a measurably bad outcome in its self, so your premise has no legs.
Then either you lack the courage of your convictions or yours is a position of faith.
Please explain.
You believe your path leads to a better world but won’t follow it if it leads to something you don’t like. The only other option then is faith, faith that it will lead to a better world and it will be one you like.
More accurately, I believe Parfit’s theories described in “On What Matters” could lead to better outcomes, and your projected outcome of such theories leading to the killing baby’s is terribly misinformed.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
And if that lead to every child born with a defect being put down for the greater good would you accept that? No, no you wouldn’t, you would say that we hadn’t reached the right “outcome”. And it will never be the right outcome until it meets “your” idea of the right outcome.
You are right, I would not. Of course, killing baby’s is a measurably bad outcome in its self, so your premise has no legs.
Then either you lack the courage of your convictions or yours is a position of faith.
Please explain.
You believe your path leads to a better world but won’t follow it if it leads to something you don’t like. The only other option then is faith, faith that it will lead to a better world and it will be one you like.
More accurately, I believe Parfit’s theories described in “On What Matters” could lead to better outcomes, and your projected outcome of such theories leading to the killing baby’s is terribly misinformed.
That’s because you have already subjectively presupposed that your objective theories will lead to your preferred conclusions.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
And if that lead to every child born with a defect being put down for the greater good would you accept that? No, no you wouldn’t, you would say that we hadn’t reached the right “outcome”. And it will never be the right outcome until it meets “your” idea of the right outcome.
You are right, I would not. Of course, killing baby’s is a measurably bad outcome in its self, so your premise has no legs.
Then either you lack the courage of your convictions or yours is a position of faith.
Please explain.
You believe your path leads to a better world but won’t follow it if it leads to something you don’t like. The only other option then is faith, faith that it will lead to a better world and it will be one you like.
More accurately, I believe Parfit’s theories described in “On What Matters” could lead to better outcomes, and your projected outcome of such theories leading to the killing baby’s is terribly misinformed.
That’s because you have already subjectively presupposed that your objective theories will lead to your preferred conclusions.
Shall we follow the logic using Parfait’s theories? Maybe start with the Kantian principals in his tipple theory?
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
And if that lead to every child born with a defect being put down for the greater good would you accept that? No, no you wouldn’t, you would say that we hadn’t reached the right “outcome”. And it will never be the right outcome until it meets “your” idea of the right outcome.
You are right, I would not. Of course, killing baby’s is a measurably bad outcome in its self, so your premise has no legs.
Then either you lack the courage of your convictions or yours is a position of faith.
Please explain.
You believe your path leads to a better world but won’t follow it if it leads to something you don’t like. The only other option then is faith, faith that it will lead to a better world and it will be one you like.
More accurately, I believe Parfit’s theories described in “On What Matters” could lead to better outcomes, and your projected outcome of such theories leading to the killing baby’s is terribly misinformed.
That’s because you have already subjectively presupposed that your objective theories will lead to your preferred conclusions.
Shall we follow the logic using Parfait’s theories? Maybe start with the Kantian principals in his tipple theory?
I’m not really into leather and tipple chains but if you go slow and use small words with lots of lubrication I’ll see how much I can take. You should probably get us our own room so we don’t ruin Lillian’s carpet.
Hello and welcome. There is no objective morality therefore moral relativism is all there is, like it or not.
I disagree that there is “no objective morality”, in the sense that we can compare moral choices and measure outcomes to increasing degrees of accuracy as our methods evolve.
And if that lead to every child born with a defect being put down for the greater good would you accept that? No, no you wouldn’t, you would say that we hadn’t reached the right “outcome”. And it will never be the right outcome until it meets “your” idea of the right outcome.
You are right, I would not. Of course, killing baby’s is a measurably bad outcome in its self, so your premise has no legs.
Then either you lack the courage of your convictions or yours is a position of faith.
Please explain.
You believe your path leads to a better world but won’t follow it if it leads to something you don’t like. The only other option then is faith, faith that it will lead to a better world and it will be one you like.
More accurately, I believe Parfit’s theories described in “On What Matters” could lead to better outcomes, and your projected outcome of such theories leading to the killing baby’s is terribly misinformed.
That’s because you have already subjectively presupposed that your objective theories will lead to your preferred conclusions.
Shall we follow the logic using Parfait’s theories? Maybe start with the Kantian principals in his tipple theory?
I’m not really into leather and tipple chains but if you go slow and use small words with lots of lubrication I’ll see how much I can take. You should probably get us our own room so we don’t ruin Lillian’s carpet.
