He's a plum. Plum. P.L.U.M

Did I refute Jesus? I think I did. In three seconds flat. Amateur. Are you a Jesuser? Bet you are.

Did I refute Jesus? I think I did. In three seconds flat. Amateur. Are you a Jesuser? Bet you are. — Bartricks

What are you doing?

I am trying to get you to answer one of my questions - I've answered lots of yours. Now, I haven't read the bible, but I believe what you presented to me as a central tenet of ethics - love your neighbour as yourself - was something Jesus said, yes? And I suspect you're a big fan of his, but I don't know.
Anyway, it is false, isn't it? That central tenet of ethics is false.

I'm not a Christian. It's kind of nauseating talking to you, so I'll move on...

Charmed as ever. Stop engaging with me then. Fool.

The basis is how individuals reason. Not everyone reasons the same way. — Terrapin Station

Not true, there are rules for valid reasoning. What you mean is that not everyone reasons from the same assumptions or premises.

I know what the words mean. If an agent, or subject, is capable of rational evaluation then they are not merely sentient, but sapient.

Not true, there are rules for valid reasoning. What you mean is that not everyone reasons from the same assumptions or premises. — Janus

Morality doesn't proceed from reason, though.

If you're using sapient to mean possesses reason, then yes, the subject whose prescriptions and values constitute rational prescriptions and values would possess reason as he/she 'is' reason - I mean, obviously. But I take Sapient to mean 'human', not 'rational'.

Seems to me you're doing an EricH and asking me questions to which the answers are blindingly obvious and then taking it to be some kind of victory when I don't answer.

I mean, if I've identified the subject - the one whose prescriptions and values are moral prescriptions and values - as Reason, then why on earth would you think there could possibly be any question over whether she possesses reason? She 'is' Reason.

Sure, other social animals can have a sense of fairness that is not based on reason, but on instinct or feeling. But principles of fairness can be rationally derived; for example the idea that there is no a priori reason that any individual should be privileged over any other.

sapient adjective
/ˈseɪpiənt/
(literary)

having great intelligence or knowledge

I take it to mean "knowing" in the sense of discursive knowledge and reason. It seems to apply only to humans, but if there were an alien race with language and reason, they would be considered sapient.

Animals we generally think of as merely sentient.

But a rational argument (referencing science no less) can be and has been used to defend inequality.

I'm not saying that reason has no role in achieving justice, but morality in general does not proceed from it.

The fireman risks his own life to save a child. Reason doesn't ground that action. Agree?

Like I say, I interpreted it to mean 'human', which I think 'is' one of its meanings.

I didn't know it could also mean having intelligence. But even if I did, I would have charitably assumed you meant it to mean 'human' given how blindingly obvious the answer to your question - the question you were actually asking - was.

So, 'yes', Reason is intelligent because intelligence itself is constitutively determined by her.

Anyway, Hugh, just engage the argument and stop asking inane questions. And stop saying - completely dishonestly - that I have just stipulated and not provided evidence. The argument 'is' evidence. It is what all evidence must ultimately boil down to. Reasoned arguments.

That still doesn't explain how Reason could be thought of as a subject in the common sense of "subject". Are you claiming there is a real, sensing, experiencing entity called "Reason"? If so, that makes no more sense to me than to say there is a real sensing entity called God. And I don't know what you think is the difference between this Reason of yours and the God of the philosophers. Is reason all good, all-loving- all-knowing, all-powerful and so on? Did reason create the world? Would Reason exist if humans didn't? I need more information from you in order to grasp how you are conceiving this Reason.

I have no idea how that could not make sense to you.

Me: I have a car

You: what do you mean by 'a car'

Me: do you have a car?

You: yes.

Me: one of those

You: you mean a metal box with an engine and wheels and a control panel?

Me: yes.

You: I have no idea what you mean

Me: I don't know how that can be.

You: do you mean it is a lemon? I think it must be a lemon

Me: no, I mean a car.

You: A Ferrari then. It must be a Ferrari if it is a car, I don't know how else to make sense of what you're sayting.

Me: no, it is not a Ferrari. At least I don't think it is - I don't see why it has to be. Perhaps it is, I do not know. But it is a car.

You: I don't know what you mean. Does it have rotams?

Me: Rotams, no I don't think so.

You: how can it be a car and not have rotams?

Me: I don't think it has them.

You: a rotam is latin for a wheel

Me: oh, okay, then it has rotams - you know, wheels.

You: I don't know what you mean.

But a rational argument (referencing science no less) can be and has been used to defend inequality.

I'm not saying that reason has no role in achieving justice, but morality in general does not proceed from it.

The fireman risks his own life to save a child. Reason doesn't ground that action. Agree? — frank

A rational argument could be one which reasons validly from unsound premises, to be sure. But the ideal of reason is that it be free of bias, and I would say that any argument for inequality could not count as being free from bias.

The fireman saving the child could be driven by either emotion or principle, I would say.

@Bartricks

You seem to think that you not being understood is a problem for other people.

Meditate on that for a bit.

You seem to think I respect your advice.

You've been given enough chances by myself and others to try to explain yourself reasonably, but now I'm done with you, Barty.

Hmph... not something I am keen on. You showed some initial promise, but you don't know when to stop. You're heading for a confrontation with the mods. Take care.

bye Hugh. Thanks for all the insufferable condescension.

rational argument could be one which reasons validly from unsound premises, to be sure. But the ideal of reason is that it be free of bias, and I would say that any argument for inequality could not count as being free from bias. — Janus

So a biased scientist isn't rational? Einstein was very biased. He wasnt being rational?

The fireman saving the child could be driven by either emotion or principle, I would say. — Janus

The OP needs for all morality to proceed from reason. Do you think it does?

Thanks for all the insufferable condescension — Bartricks

Did I refute Jesus? I think I did. In three seconds flat. — Bartricks

:lol:

see reply to Hugh above. You, like most others, seem incapable of addressing the argument rather than the arguer.

All of which makes for a tedious thread.

The sad thing is that most of the others here are worse.

Remember the bit where I asked about the Euthyphro, and you went off on a tangent about other stuff, accusing me of not having read it?

incapable of addressing the argument rather than the arguer. — Bartricks

Odd.

So a biased scientist isn't rational? Einstein was very biased. He wasnt being rational? — frank

Inasmuch as he was being biased he would not have been being rational.

The OP needs for all morality to proceed from reason. Do you think it does? — frank

No, I don't think morality has its genesis in rationality, but in emotion or instinct. But I do think principles of fairness and lack of bias can be rationally formulated to stand on their own. If a person is empathetic to the highest degree such that she has genuine compassion for all people or even all beings, then she will be a moral person. Are there any such enlightened people? I don't know. On the other hand it does seem unlikely that anyone would do their moral duty unfailingly in the Kantian categorical sense. No one is perfect, I guess.

Inasmuch as he was being biased he would not have been being rational. — Janus

So if science isnt approached entirely rationally, it's not likely that morality is.

No, I don't think morality has its genesis in rationality, but in emotion or instinct — Janus

I'd say love, but close enough. :up: