Er, yes. It establishes that not all value is moral value. Do you actually understand arguments at all? I mean, you've thrown the word 'quantification' in so that we'll all think you do. But it seems to me that you most certainly don't. — Bartricks
And if my reason prescribes something different than yours? What then? — Janus
That's a pretty limited interpretation. — Banno
The argument I have presented is about moral values. It establishes - whether you like it or not, and whatever theory you favour - that moral values are the values of a subject, a subject who is not me, or you, but Reason. — Bartricks
Empirical observation is not unreasonable. — Banno
Paste the premise and then tell me how anything I've said contradicts it. — Bartricks
...the first premise says 'if' my valuings are morally values (so not 'they are' but 'if') then if I value something necessarily it will be morally valuable.
Your premiss is false. It contradicts with the way things are. Need I spell it all out for you? — creativesoul
Yes. You. Do. Which premise? Spell it out. But in my words, not yours. Paste the premise and then tell me how anything I've said contradicts it. — Bartricks
1. For something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued — Bartricks
It is not the one making a claim who has the burden of proof - that's only something those who get all their information from youtube videos think. No, it is the one who says things that are contrary to appearances who has the burden of proof. After all, if you claim that the one who has made a claim has the burden of proof then you have made a claim yourself and have a burden of proof. And you are not going to be able to discharge that burden without appealing to other claims, and so nothing turns out to be justified. Which is really stupid, because that means you're not justified in thinking nothing is justified. — Bartricks
Go to a bookshop. Pick up an introductory book on ethics - one written by a professional philosopher and published by a reputable academic publishing house, not one written by a scientist or a psychologist - and read what it says about divine command theories and the primary reason they should be rejected. — Bartricks
You can't challenge it by just insisting atheism is true.. I mean, you would and so would most others here, becsaue you think if you think something it is true. But a competent arguer would not do that.
You need to dispatch 1 on independent grounds. — Bartricks
This is utter nonsense. Replace with
Argument A.
1. If moral values and norms exist, a flying spaghetti monster exists
2. Moral values and norms exist
3. Therefore a flying spaghetti monster exists
Argument B
1. If moral values and norms exist, a flying spaghetti monster exists
2. No flying spaghetti monster exists
3. Therefore no moral values and norms exist
Are you suggesting that I cannot refute 1. simply by arguing that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist? — Isaac
This premis is wrong, Bartricks
1. For something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued — Bartricks
In reality anyone can value anything withoiut making it morally valuable. This is the reason we keep telling your that your premise is false. — god must be atheist
a total idiot would reject spaghetti monsterism on the grounds there is no spaghetti monster whereas someone who knew how to argue would instead reject the idea that morality requires a spaghetti monster. — Bartricks
so why do you reject spaghetti monsterism about morality? — Bartricks
I didn't say 'all'. Quote me. Come on. Find a quote where I say 'all'. Let's see if you understand language as well as you do arguments. — Bartricks
Which of those two arguments is stronger. Say now. They are both unsound. Which is stronger though? — Bartricks
What? Why would only an idiot reject the existence of a flying spaghetti monster on the grounds of the complete lack of any evidence for one. That's the exact grounds on which we justify most things we consider do not exist. And what prevents me from doing both? — Isaac
Go back over this thread and tell me you've not made a single quoting error, typo or exaggeration for rhetorical effect, then lecture me on the matter. — Isaac
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.