Is Killing a Pig Any Different Than Killing a Person?

[Moridin]

According to you, humans have a cognitive ability that gives them a right to life? What if they can't afford to buy food and therefore starve. Trade violates their rights.

Trade is volitional.

Its only superior when we use it to do something those without it can't. Otherwise its just a different cognitive function. And there are quite a few animals with cognitive functions that are superior to ours... in certain ways, when doing certain things.

Overall cognitive function.

You can't derive an ought from an is.

I have demonstrated countless of times that it is possible.

In fact, by disagreeing with me, you are affirming my position. You are performing the stolen concept fallacy.

When entering a rational discussion, one commits oneself to certain presuppositions, like the existence and independence of truth, the meaningfulness of language and so on. To try to argue against it would be to undermine ones own position. If you where to argue that truth does not exist, the fact that you are arguing with me over the truth of the proposition "truth does not exists" shows that you are affirming that which you are denying, ie. performing the stolen concept fallacy. By arguing that truth does not exist, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

This happens in the same manner when you try to argue that it objectively ought to be the case that moral relativism is true.

Then you are a great and powerful wizard, or possibly, a hopelessly deluded randian fanatic.

What an intelligent non-argument.

Really, can you quote the part where I said that?
Sounds like you arguing with yourself here more than anyone else.
Might improve things if you actually read for comprehension and not just so you can paste in your memorized answers.

As a relativist, you commit the naturalistic fallacy, by assuming that our unprocessed opinions and instincts about moral standards are automatically valid.

I'm not a pacifist though. Happy to beat you senseless if you get in my face. Not going to argue the right or wrong of it. Life happens. I'll let the lawyers decide what was legal. They don't worry about rights or wrongs so much.

I will take this as your concession.

Quite amusing though, been a while since I read such self-contradicting nonsense.

How so? I have proven that you both have performed the stolen concept fallacy and the naturalist fallacy.

 

[Moridin]

Okay, I'm totally just sticking my head in here without having read most of this thread. But the above argument sounds to me just like this arcane Stoicist point we would advance in grade school: “I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”

⚛​

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 to a rational discussion as saying that blue is your favorite color.

If you claim to have objective arguments that moral relativism is true, that means that you think that it objectively ought to be the case that moral relativism is true and that it objectively ought to the be the case that everyone changes their mind and accept the proposition of moral relativism.

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

That is why moral relativism is a fundamentally self-contradicting proposition, since it is actually a fallacy.

 

[JoeDawg]

This happens in the same manner when you try to argue that it objectively ought to be the case that moral relativism is true.

Strawman.

No one is arguing that except you.

 

[JoeDawg]

Trade is volitional.

The strong set the rules.

You are a randian troll.

 

[Moridin]

Strawman.

No one is arguing that except you.

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 relativism is true, that means that you think that it objectively ought to be the case that moral relativism is true and that it objectively ought to the be the case that everyone changes their mind and accept the proposition of moral relativism (otherwise you would not have objective arguments and take part in a rational discussion). So moral relativism 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 relativist who commits the naturalistic fallacy, by assuming that our unprocessed opinions and instincts about moral standards are automatically valid.

That is why moral relativism is a fundamentally a self-refuting proposition.

Thanks.

 

[JoeDawg]

If you claim to have objective arguments that moral relativism is true...

Haven't seen even one such argument so far... except in your strawman arguments.

 

[Moridin]

Haven't seen even one such argument so far... except in your strawman arguments.

Then you are admitting that moral relativism is just your unsupported opinion, which shatters your position.

I have shown that your position is fundamentally self-refuting. Can you find any flaw in my argument?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

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?

You appear to be saying, “Whatever is objectively true, that's what I believe. So I'm automatically right. I'm so right, in fact, that anything which comes out of your mouth simply proves I'm even more right, since my position consists of everything that is objectively true and it knew you were going to say that.”

⚛​

 

[Moridin]

No, my argument is that the moral relativist performs the http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Stolen_Concept .

Read this post for a more in-depth analysis. Moral relativism is fundamentally self-refuting.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Doesn't an argument like that depend on an assumption that it means that all statements about morality are relative?

And besides, in what I quoted you didn't claim that they were disproving their own philosophy, you claimed that they were proving yours.

⚛​

 

[Moridin]

Doesn't an argument like that depend on an assumption that it means that all statements about morality are relative?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

And besides, in what I quoted you didn't claim that they were disproving their own philosophy, you claimed that they were proving yours.

The position I advanced in that particular part of my discussion was that "moral relativism is false".

 

[JoeDawg]

Then you are admitting...

First, please stop telling me what I am saying. It's very obnoxious.
Also its standard randian rhetorical bull****.
So if you want me to believe you are anything but a randian... you will learn this.

Second, no one has ever claimed that 'objective facts' don't exist.
You are confusing ontology with epistemology.

The latter is about what we can 'know', not what actually exists.

By definition(not any objective fact) we say that we are subjective beings.
We experience, we have a point of view.
We define objective as being without a point of view.
There is nothing objective about definitions.
We are simply making what 'we consider' an important distinction.
We could be wrong, they could be meaningless.

If one is a solipsist, then subjective/objective become meaningless.

Most people however, recognize, at least, the possibility of other points of view.
We do not 'know for certain' what exists but our experience leads us to believe certain things exist, but 'the way' they exist is open to debate.

The idea of a stolen concept is that one DENIES an antecedent.
A->B->C
If one uses 'C' to deny 'A', that is a stolen concept.
However, if one simply uses 'C' to question the nature of 'A', rather than the existence of A, that is different.

Further, your understanding of the 'naturalistic fallacy' is rudimentary at best.

 

[Moridin]

Here is the easiest argument I can make for moral realism.

Fact: Something we know
Value: Something we want to keep
Morality: What we use to figure out how to keep our values by using facts!

Given facts f(1),f(2),...,f(n) and values v(1),v(2),...,v(n), we can provide conclusive evidence for morality realism m.

Now, you say, values might be subjective? Well, that is beside the point. The issue here is that we can, given the facts and values, determine morality in a realist way.

 

[Moridin]

First, please stop telling me what I am saying. It's very obnoxious.
Also its standard randian rhetorical bull****.
So if you want me to believe you are anything but a randian... you will learn this.

I will take your irrational spouting as your concession to the power of logic and reason. The only part of my philosophy that is "randian" is my refutation of moral relativism (and the art of presuppositional argumentation in metaphysics).

Second, no one has ever claimed that 'objective facts' don't exist.
You are confusing ontology with epistemology.

Since I never claimed it, your argument does not follow.

By definition(not any objective fact) we say that we are subjective beings.

Is that an objective statement or is it true just for you? You are falling into the trap of subjectivism.

If one is a solipsist, then subjective/objective become meaningless.

As it happens, solipsism is also self-refuting.

Most people however, recognize, at least, the possibility of other points of view.
We do not 'know for certain' what exists but our experience leads us to believe certain things exist, but 'the way' they exist is open to debate.

Are you saying that we know for certain that we cannot know what exists for certain? That is self-refuting. A = A. Your claim is refuted by the law of non-contradiction, which is axiomatically true. If you are questioning the law of non-contradiction, you are, yet again, performing the stolen concept fallacy.

The idea of a stolen concept is that one DENIES an antecedent.

No, the fallacy of stolen concept is when one is denying that which one is trying to prove. Denial of an antecedent is simply: A -> B, ~A, Therefore ~B, which is not the same as the stolen concept fallacy.

However, if one simply uses 'C' to question the nature of 'A', rather than the existence of A, that is different.

If you are trying to use the truth to question the nature of truth, then you are performing the fallacy of stolen concepts.

Further, your understanding of the 'naturalistic fallacy' is rudimentary at best.

Yet you cannot refute my assertion that you as a moral relativist performs it?

I think this is part of a bigger issue for moral relativists. They simply do not want to submit their lawlessness ideas to objective examination. Moral relativism is almost as irrational as religious "morality".

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

You said that moral relativism is “fundamentally self-refuting”. I don't agree with it myself but the basic tenet of moral relativism is that multiple contradicting systems of morals can be true for each culture or individual who holds them. Those sorts of arguments about self-refutation usually rely on an extension of moral relativism to saying that any statement whatsoever about morality is relative - basically telling your interlocutor what they believe.

The position I advanced in that particular part of my discussion was that "moral relativism is false".

For someone who throws the term “fallacy” around so casually it's a bit suspicious that when I highlight your claim that anything anyone posts proves your moral realism position, all you have in response is a string of references to previous negative claims about moral relativism.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Moral relativism is almost as irrational as religious "morality".

A blanket claim that any moral reasoning related to religion is irrational? Can anyone say “fallacy” or “pejorative”?

⚛​

 

[JoeDawg]

A = A

Oh golly gee wiz... I was right.
Randian nutjob = Randian nutjob.

 

[JoeDawg]

all you have in response is a string of references to previous negative claims about moral relativism.

LOL

Just wait until the randian starts claiming they are axioms.

 

[Moridin]

For someone who throws the term “fallacy” around so casually it's a bit suspicious that when I highlight your claim that anything anyone posts proves your moral realism position, all you have in response is a string of references to previous negative claims about moral relativism.

I did not argue that moral realism is true because moral relativism is false. I argued that moral relativism is false because [argument].

You said that moral relativism is “fundamentally self-refuting”. I don't agree with it myself but the basic tenet of moral relativism is that multiple contradicting systems of morals can be true for each culture or individual who holds them. Those sorts of arguments about self-refutation usually rely on an extension of moral relativism to saying that any statement whatsoever about morality is relative - basically telling your interlocutor what they believe.

My argument against moral relativism is not the straw man you are making here, but to point out that it uses the stolen concept fallacy.

A blanket claim that any moral reasoning related to religion is irrational? Can anyone say “fallacy” or “pejorative”?

It was a comment on the side. I am prepared to go into the specifics if you want. All religions cannot be true, so there is only 1 moral systems that can be in principle true. Then we simply apply the Euthyphro Dilemma on Divine Command Theory and the game is over.

Any questions?

 

[Moridin]

Oh golly gee wiz... I was right.
Randian nutjob = Randian nutjob.

Actually, the principle of non-contradiction comes from Aristotle.

I notice that you did not try to counter my argument. Did you notice it too? Just admit it: your position has crumbled.

 

[Moridin]

I made a quick proof of moral realism here.

 

[NeoDevin]

Here is the easiest argument I can make for moral realism.

Fact: Something we know
Value: Something we want to keep
Morality: What we use to figure out how to keep our values by using facts!

Given facts f(1),f(2),...,f(n) and values v(1),v(2),...,v(n), we can provide conclusive evidence for morality realism m.

Now, you say, values might be subjective? Well, that is beside the point. The issue here is that we can, given the facts and values, determine morality in a realist way.

I'm not completely familiar with the concepts here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't moral realism require objectively determined (and/or universal) values. Seems to me if the values change from person to person/group to group, what you are describing is moral relativism.

 

[Moridin]

I'm not completely familiar with the concepts here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't moral realism require objectively determined (and/or universal) values. Seems to me if the values change from person to person/group to group, what you are describing is moral relativism.

No, moral realism only require objectively determined morality (as defined above). Moral relativism would be the claim that the method of figuring out how to keep our values by using facts cannot be objectively determined.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Any questions?

Yes, you yet again avoided addressing how the claim that other people simply posting or arguing their own points proves moral realism is not fallacious.

⚛​

 

[Huckleberry]

I will take this as your concession.

You are quite arrogant and immature, but I suppose that is acceptable to you since you are cognitively superior to us ordinary humans. Not only do you know everything, but your subjective opinions are objective facts, your interpretation supercedes the meaning of anyone's argument, you assign people positions they never claimed so you can argue some prepared speech against that argument.

Regardless of the correctness of moral realism, which I never denied, I declare your intentions to be empirically false and morally corrupt. You are incapable of an honest discussion, and only a fool would argue with a fool. I'm deeply regretful that I even bothered to try. You really should find another outlet for your anger issues and inferiority complex.

 

[Moridin]

Yes, you yet again avoided addressing how the claim that other people simply posting or arguing their own points proves moral realism is not fallacious.

⚛​

Because they must presuppose moral realism in order to take part in a rational discussion. That is why they perform the stolen concept fallacy, which I have explained again and again and again.

My argument applies to all forms of moral anti-realism so it is essentially a justification by elimination (Everything that is not moral realism is false).

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 relativism is true, that means that you think that it objectively ought to be the case that moral relativism is true and that it objectively ought to the be the case that everyone changes their mind and accept the proposition of moral relativism (otherwise you would not have objective arguments and take part in a rational discussion). So moral relativism 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 relativist who commits the naturalistic fallacy, by assuming that our unprocessed opinions and instincts about moral standards are automatically valid.

That is why moral relativism is a fundamentally a self-refuting proposition.

You can replace moral relativism with moral anti-realism for better understanding.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

All religions cannot be true, so there is only 1 moral systems that can be in principle true. Then we simply apply the Euthyphro Dilemma on Divine Command Theory and the game is over.

Another thing - “untrue” and “irrational” are not synonyms. You also appear to be using both those words as synonyms for “disagrees with Moridin.”

⚛​

 

[Moridin]

You are quite arrogant and immature, but I suppose that is acceptable to you since you are cognitively superior to us ordinary humans.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7311/141919flm2.jpg

Not posting arguments and instead collapsing to ad hominem is itself arrogant and immature.

Not only do you know everything, but your subjective opinions are objective facts, your interpretation supercedes the meaning of anyone's argument, you assign people positions they never claimed so you can argue some prepared speech against that argument.

If you claim that my position is just a subjective opinion, then I can equally claim that the claim is itself just your subjective opinion.

By arguing against moral realism, you must have a position of some form of moral anti-realism, by definition.

Regardless of the correctness of moral realism, which I never denied, I declare your intentions to be empirically false and morally corrupt.

And yet you are fundamentally incapable of refuting my position. Well done.

You are incapable of an honest discussion, and only a fool would argue with a fool.

I do apologize if the refutation of your belief system is painful, but we must subject our beliefs to facts. I'm afraid that acting like a big baby will not change that.

I'm deeply regretful that I even bothered to try. You really should find another outlet for your anger issues and inferiority complex.

Indeed, this seems to be your concession.

 

[Moridin]

Another thing - “untrue” and “irrational” are not synonyms. You also appear to be using both those words as synonyms for “disagrees with Moridin.”

⚛​

It is irrational to hold something as true if it is false. I also noticed that you do not attempt to refute my position. Did you notice it too?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Because they must presuppose moral realism in order to take part in a rational discussion.

You really are going to go with “it's impossible for anyone to discuss anything without agreeing with my moral philosophy”? No, not fallacious at all.

In my entire time on this forum I have never used the spinning, laughing smiley because I despise it. But I will use it here because it's the only thing truly fitting.

⚛​