Nonetheless...In either respect, morality is always internally processed data, rather than a universal constant.
The first child eats both pieces of candy.The stealing his siblings candy was an evil necessary to satisfy his sweet tooth and greed.
Or let's say there's a child at their blind parents death bed, and the parent asks if their other child who happens to be mute is there as well.The child who is there 'lies and says yes they are.Parent dies happy.The lie was an evil necessary to satisfy the childs desire to make his parent's death happier by thinking their other mute child was there as well.
Let's say there's a kid, and their mother gives him 2 pieces of candy, while telling him to give 1 of the pieces of candy to their other sibling in another room.The first child eats both pieces of candy.The stealing his siblings candy was an evil necessary to satisfy his sweet tooth and greed.Or let's say there's a child at their blind parents death bed, and the parent asks if their other child who happens to be mute is there as well.The child who is there 'lies and says yes they are.Parent dies happy.The lie was an evil necessary to satisfy the childs desire to make his parent's death happier by thinking their other mute child was there as well.
What if your grandparents made a contract with a bunch of people to give them a bunch of land they could presumably hunt and farm on (so they could stay alive) and then changed the deal and gave them much less land than they had promised and also polluted the water supply and killed off the animals.You didn't do any of this.But you know, hypothetically, what if your grandparents did this.Does the passage of time magically make "wrong" things "normal"?How could they have changed the deal if they made a contract, at least unknowingly to the other party? The stipulations should have been made known to each party involved before the deal was final. That is, if the other party did not want less land and a polluted water supply, then they could've opted out.
I would suggest that you are being deliberately intransigent in respect of a cause.
The dictionary defines words separately....So subjective + morality will be as defined irrespective of your point of view....Same goes for objective + morality.
You must understand that not everyone agrees with your personally subjective principles.
Nonetheless...In either respect, morality is always internally processed data, rather than a universal constant.
so I am afraid I must reject your term because that sentence reads like nonsense.
I would suggest that you are being deliberately intransigent in respect of a cause.That’s how I stay true to my views.
I would suggest that you are being deliberately intransigent in respect of a cause.That’s how I stay true to my views.
regardless of its soundness
No, not regardless of its soundness if I a sound argument refutes mine then I would accept it at face value but so far that hasn’t happened.
I would suggest that you are being deliberately intransigent in respect of a cause.That’s how I stay true to my views.
This statement is directly contradicted by this sentiment.
which is what I was alluding to when I said it’s self refuting.
No it’s not, let’s say your dealing with a lunatic whose goal is to kill 100 people are you willing to be transigent in regards to your views and say he meet you halfway with 50?
I sure hope not, same thing applies here, I refuse to negotiate with a bunch of looneys, miss me with that.
I would suggest that you are being deliberately intransigent in respect of a cause.That’s how I stay true to my views.
No it’s not, let’s say your dealing with a lunatic whose goal is to kill 100 people are you willing to be transigent in regards to your views and say he meet you halfway with 50?
MIDDLE GROUND ≠ COMMON GROUND
Appeal to consequences fallacy
Groundless ad hominem attack.
I would suggest you familiarsize yourself with the more common logical fallacies in order to avoid them
It would be a pointless exercise.For you as much as for us.
MIDDLE GROUND ≠ COMMON GROUND
meet you halfway with 50
If you truly believed this you wouldn’t continue to engage in this banter.
Yes, but I didn’t say that’s the same as common ground.
Why are you arguing as if I’m equating the two to one another, I’m not. Although you could make an exception if both parties agree to the middle ground.
Once you give up your WEAPONS, you are at the MERCY of the side with an ARMY.
THE QUESTION IS, "WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DO GRANDCHILDREN HAVE FOR THE CRIMES (think "deathcamps" & "slaughter") OF THEIR GRANDPARENTS?"(A) 0%(B) 5%(C) 6%
(IFF) you agree with me (THEN) we are not in disagreement
THE QUESTION IS, "WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DO GRANDCHILDREN HAVE FOR THE CRIMES (think "deathcamps" & "slaughter") OF THEIR GRANDPARENTS?"(A) 0%(B) 5%(C) 6%A.
If you truly believed this you wouldn’t continue to engage in this banter.
I'm not sure this is necessarily necessary.
I'm not sure this is necessarily evil.
Are you suggesting that every action and every thought is technically "necessary"?
