You are doing it again. At this point it is trolling.
Breathing is directed to survival. Breathing is necessary for survival. Breathing is not sufficient for survival.
Reason is directed to survival. Reason is necessary for survival. Reason is not sufficient for survival.
And that is not "equating" one with the other. — TonesInDeepFreeze
reason is how the human navigates the world. — Garrett Travers
Now you're lying by putting words in my mouth. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Even if we accept that in some general sense as true, it does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if is selfish. — TonesInDeepFreeze
And that is not "equating" one with the other.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
It is — Garrett Travers
I'm pointing out that your argument against reason — Garrett Travers
If you persist in insisting that I have claimed an equality, then you will be persisting in lying about me. — TonesInDeepFreeze
it isn't at all difficult to see why such a standard would be made — Garrett Travers
If you mean to say that you are looking for an is/aught distinction — Garrett Travers
I don't know what you thought you were getting across, — Garrett Travers
Saying "it is not at all difficult to see" is not a logical argument. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Individual humans are the source of ethics, ethics are standardized by that individual. — Garrett Travers
I read your words — Garrett Travers
same caliber — Garrett Travers
That does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Another abysmally vague term.
And I made no claim of sameness of caliber nor containment in the "same ballpark" or anything like that. — TonesInDeepFreeze
That does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
That's not Objectivism's argument: — Garrett Travers
I didn't say it is an argument. it's the conclusion of an argument
You don't think that Objectivism claims that an act is ethical if and only if is selfish? — TonesInDeepFreeze
It isn't an if and only if equation. — Garrett Travers
If and only if it is a benefit to one's own survival? — Garrett Travers
'if and only if' is not an equation; it is an equivalence.
You don't think that Objectivism holds that if an act is ethical then it is selfish, and that if an act is selfish then it is ethical?
And even if it were only one direction of the arrow, no matter which direction, it doesn't follow by valid logic in the Objectivist arguments. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Another abysmally vague term.
And I made no claim of sameness of caliber nor containment in the "same ballpark" or anything like that.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
Then they wouldn't have been brought up together. — Garrett Travers
No, it's a biconditional. — Garrett Travers
That is absurd. Bringing up two items for consideration together is not in and of itself equating them. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Good. That's what I said it is. I don't know why you said it isn't then changed your mind. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Whatever 'relate in function means', I did not claim to state the argument for the conclusion. I just said that the premises don't entail the conclusion. The conclusion is the biconditional I stated. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Whatever 'relate in function means', my not mentioning it is not an assertion of an equality. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Because it's two in the morning — Garrett Travers
nonsense — Garrett Travers
Yes, ethical conceptualizations are self-benefitting actions. Self-oppositional actions are not ethical — Garrett Travers
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.