What I realized

Author: Tarik

Posts

Total: 449
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
What was the something I was deeming moral?
You didn’t, I was just generally speaking not you specifically.

You could consider all communication manipulative with that line of logic, which I don’t think you would have concluded otherwise.
I consider this bad faith.
Not if the other communicated subjects is supported with something other than emotion.

Yeah I’m an atheist.
With that being said to answer this question

What is the value of morality without emotion?
Nothing because as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
You didn’t, I was just generally speaking not you specifically.
So it has nothing to do with our conversation of you wrongly claiming I appealed to emotion.
More bad faith.

Not if the other communicated subjects is supported with something other than emotion.
Can you make an argument for moralities existence without emotion? 

Nothing because as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist.
What doesn’t exist? 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
So it has nothing to do with our conversation of you wrongly claiming I appealed to emotion.
More bad faith.
Okay, so what if the narrative was the death penalty? Whatever argument you make for or against it I’m sure is based on your emotional appeal for human life, that was my point, just because we didn’t cover the base of a specific issue doesn’t make my argument any less valid.

Can you make an argument for moralities existence without emotion?
Only if there’s a God to verify, in that case emotion can still be there but it stems from logic (wanting to go to heaven) if not it’s all emotional and inherently fallacious.

What doesn’t exist?
Morality in a purely subjective sense.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Okay, so what if the narrative was the death penalty? Whatever argument you make for or against it I’m sure is based on your emotional appeal for human life, that was my point, just because we didn’t cover the base of a specific issue doesn’t make my argument any less valid.
Alright, if you want to change narrative.
The death penalty is interesting. I’m sure that applies to everyone. 

Only if there’s a God to verify, in that case emotion can still be there but it stems from logic (wanting to go to heaven) if not it’s all emotional and inherently fallacious.
Wouldn’t that be fear of not going to heaven and seeing your loved ones?  What does it mean to be God fearing? 
You do relies this all boils down to emotion, right?

Morality in a purely subjective sense.
But also intersubjective too. We share our thoughts to the best of our ability with community.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
Alright, if you want to change narrative. 
The death penalty is interesting. I’m sure that applies to everyone. 
Doesn’t make it any less fallacious.

You do relies this all boils down to emotion, right?
You can make a case for it but it can’t lose sight of what it stems from and that’s logic.

But also intersubjective too.
Fallacies are also inter subjective which is the ultimate sign why it should be dismissed.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Doesn’t make it any less fallacious.
How?

You do relies this all boils down to emotion, right?
You can make a case for it but it can’t lose sight of what it stems from and that’s logic.
Yet you haven’t explained yourself. You can use logic to justify your morality if your goal is happiness for example, but morality does not stem from logic. We are not robots.

Fallacies are also inter subjective which is the ultimate sign why it should be dismissed.
All concepts that are shared are intersubjective. This is why reasoning and empathising is key instead of appealing to dictators. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
You can use logic to justify your morality if your goal is happiness for example, but morality does not stem from logic. We are not robots.
Robots aren’t the standard of logic, at the end of the day robots don’t exist without us.

All concepts that are shared are intersubjective. This is why reasoning and empathising is key instead of appealing to dictators.
Sounds like an emotional argument to me, and you know what emotional arguments are?
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Robots aren’t the standard of logic, at the end of the day robots don’t exist without us.
You’re starting to not even respond to the substance of my arguments. 
Such bad faith.

Sounds like an emotional argument to me, and you know what emotional arguments are?
Emotional arguments aren’t fallacious when directly dealing with emotions. This is what the foundation of morality is based on. 
Again, you haven’t explained yourself. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
You’re starting to not even respond to the substance of my arguments. 
Such bad faith.
The substance of your arguments is inherently fallacious, how’s that for bad faith?

Emotional arguments aren’t fallacious when directly dealing with emotions. This is what the foundation of morality is based on.
Again, you haven’t explained yourself.
So give me an example when they are fallacious, I don’t see why I need to explain anything after you claimed to know what appeal of emotion fallacy is, but by the looks of it apparently not. Google is free look it up.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
The substance of your arguments is inherently fallacious, how’s that for bad faith?
Oh now you’re back on track. 

How?

So give me an example when they are fallacious, I don’t see why I need to explain anything after you claimed to know what appeal of emotion fallacy is, but by the looks of it apparently not. Google is free look it up.
Now you’re nitpicking between the appeal to emotion (an official fallacy) and emotional driven arguments. 

You still haven’t explained yourself how morality is based on logic and not emotion.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
Now you’re nitpicking between the appeal to emotion (an official fallacy) and emotional driven arguments. 
...Seriously what’s the difference?

You still haven’t explained yourself how morality is based on logic and not emotion.
You said it yourself “You can use logic to justify your morality if your goal is happiness for example” no explanation from me necessary.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
...Seriously what’s the difference?
Appeal to emotion is the effort to manipulate the emotions of an audience without facts or logic.
While emotional driven arguments use emotion as reason. That’s how I define it.

You said it yourself “You can use logic to justify your morality if your goal is happiness for example” no explanation from me necessary.
That says nothing about logic being the basis of morality. It’s merely the justification. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
Appeal to emotion is the effort to manipulate the emotions of an audience without facts or logic. 
While emotional driven arguments use emotion as reason. That’s how I define it.
...Okay, so give me an example of both.

It’s merely the justification.
And that’s how I define it.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
...Okay, so give me an example of both.
Why?

And that’s how I define it.
Well it’s good you’ve come around. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
Why?
Because you’ve basically described the same thing your unwillingness to provide an example proves this.

Well it’s good you’ve come around.
Come around from what? My position remains consistent.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Because you’ve basically described the same thing your unwillingness to provide an example proves this.
Appeal to emotion example:

Do you want your unbaptised baby to go to hell after you abort it?


Emotionally driven argument example

I’m morally justified to kill an intruder if there’s a possibility of him harming my family. 

Come around from what? My position remains consistent.
“As for the last question it’s through God but if God doesn’t exist neither does objective morality and if you’re an advocate of subjective morality you would have to prove it’s existence.“


Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
I’m morally justified to kill an intruder if there’s a possibility of him harming my family. 
It’s the same thing you have an appeal of emotion for family and you’re trying to manipulate me of that same emotion, one can very well not care about your family (hence why there attempted to be harmed).

Me defining morality as justified logic has nothing to do with subjectivity, try again.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
It’s the same thing you have an appeal of emotion for family and you’re trying to convince me of that same emotion, one can very well not care about your family (hence why there attempted to be harmed).

Me defining morality as justified logic has nothing to do with subjective morality, try again.
How doesn’t it?

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
Because subjectivity is emotional not logical.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Because subjectivity is emotional not logical.
I assume you mean subjective morality is emotional.
Why does objective morality lack an emotional foundation?  
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
You can’t prove a negative that’s not how logic works.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
You can’t prove a negative that’s not how logic works.
Alright, what is the value of objective morality when it lacks an emotional foundation?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
Heaven
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Heaven
Is that why God’s genocidal tendencies are fine because they’re morally objective? 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
Don’t quote The Bible with me, at the end of the day there’s plenty of religious people that don’t agree with everything in The Bible.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Hmm, so your relationship with God is personal then. 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
I feel like I know where you’re going with this but I’ll bite anyway just in case I’m wrong, sure just like all relationships.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tarik
Well it’s healthier than an institutional one. 
I’ll just leave it there.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
How would you describe an institutionalized relationship with God?