is killing someone wrong?

Huckleberry

You haven't proven anything. You are the only one who doesn't see that.

Moridin

Quote by Huckleberry

You haven't proven anything. You are the only one who doesn't see that.

Do you need to see my proof again? I will re-post it below. If you think that I have not proved anything, you would require to use valid arguments, which you so far have not been able to produce.

No, I am a moral realist. By questioning moral realism, you are admitting that it is true. If you are not questioning moral realism, then why are you posting?

When you question a proposition X, you either have objective arguments, or subjective arguments. If you have subjective arguments, they hold no objective value and are thus as irrelevant for a rational discussion as arguing that you like the color blue. It is nice that you like the color blue, but that's just your opinion.

If you claim to have objective arguments that moral anti-realism is true, that means that you think that it objectively ought to be the case that moral anti-realism is true and that it objectively ought to the be the case that everyone changes their mind and accept the proposition of moral anti-realism (otherwise you would not have objective arguments and take part in a rational discussion). So moral anti-realism performs the stolen concept fallacy. It is the same as claiming that it is true that no truth exist, or verbally argue that all language is meaningless.

Furthermore, it is the moral anti-realist who commits the naturalistic fallacy, by assuming that our unprocessed opinions and instincts about moral standards are automatically valid.

That is why moral anti-realism is a fundamentally a self-refuting proposition.

I have exchanged moral relativism for moral anti-realism in case you are a proponent of another type of moral anti-realism.

CaptainQuasar

Quote by Moridin

If you are not interested in attempting to refute my argument, then why do you continue to post?

Ah, I see - I'm only allowed to post on Moridin-approved topics in this thread with Moridin-approved arguments?

Quote by Moridin

Solipsism is self-refuting for two reasons. It is fundamentally without support, since any logical or evidential argument would be question-begging and invalid.

LOL!

Quote by Moridin

Moreover, the fact that you are trying to argue for solipsism with me, shows that you presuppose the invalidity of solipsism. After all, why would you take part in a rational discussion on solipsism unless that person was more than just simply a figment of your imagination?

Well, if that person was a very clownish and entertaining figment of my imagination - an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese - it would be entirely worthwhile to engage in a discussion and not irrational by any means.

This is great, it's like watching a Looney Tunes cartoon about philosophy or something. I'm going to go make some popcorn.

⚛

Moridin

Ah, I see - I'm only allowed to post on Moridin-approved topics in this thread with Moridin-approved arguments?

You can post what irrational nonsense you want, although, as I've pointed out, makes your position contradictory.

LOL!

What an intelligent non-argument. Care to try again?

Well, if that person was a very clownish and entertaining figment of my imagination - an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese - it would be entirely worthwhile to engage in a discussion and not irrational by any means.

But you agree that attempting to take part in a rational discussion with an individual presupposes the actual exists of said individual, which means that a belief in solipsism is false. The only way you can salvage solipsism is if you admit that you are not trying to take part in a rational debate, in which case you have no objectively valid case since you would have no reason to argue with a figment of your imagination.

The fact that you continue to reply, shows that you presuppose that solipsism is false.

CaptainQuasar

Quote by Moridin

The fact that you continue to reply, shows that you presuppose that solipsism is false.

Or that, as I have already pointed out, watching you dance the jig is immensely entertaining. And seeing you attempt to employ your psychic powers is definitely one of the more droll parts.

Since no one commented on the “undigested bit of beef” allusion I'll engage in a bit of conceit and point it out myself. It's a Dickensian reference. Moridin is chained and blinded by his own folly like Jacob Marley. Tee hee!

“Oh! captive, bound, and double-ironed,” cried the phantom, “not to know, that ages of incessant labour, by immortal creatures, for this earth must pass into eternity before the good of which it is susceptible is all developed. Not to know that any Christian spirit working kindly in its little sphere, whatever it may be, will find its mortal life too short for its vast means of usefulness. Not to know that no space of regret can make amends for one thread's opportunity misused! Yet such was I! Oh! such was I!”

“But you were always good at dialectical argument, Jacob,” faltered Moridin, who now began to apply this to himself.

Beware Moridin, or you may find yourself wandering empty, unresponsive threads for all eternity.

⚛

Evo

Yeesh, people!! I'm locking this.

Similar discussions for: is killing someone wrong?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Electric Field problem :( Is my math wrong or am I doing something else wrong?	Introductory Physics Homework	6
Need help about math is my calculation wrong the answer from the text book is wrong	Calculus & Beyond Homework	2
Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and Bush's Desert Shield Jr.	Current Events	6
Is Killing Human Beings Wrong/Immoral?	General Discussion	50

Huckleberry	is killing someone wrong? You haven't proven anything. You are the only one who doesn't see that.

Evo Mentor Blog Entries: 4	Yeesh, people!! I'm locking this.