No, my abstinence is the means, not steak... I don't understand how that isn't clear to you.If you don't eat steak just because you believe it is moral to abstain from eating steak then you are using steak as a means to and end of being moral. — m-theory
This is a strawman. Read my post again. Am I doing something TO IT, to the steak? NO. So yes, I am doing something by abstaining from eating steak, but not to the steak.Sure, unless you claim not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something, you are being moral by not eating steak. — m-theory
How else might one come to moral judgement if not through reasoning with the mind the validity of a statement or action through the means of removing all doubt? Can something be moral, however you think of it, if there is doubt surrounding it? — Heister Eggcart
The lack of a mental narrative doesn't ensure the immorality of your actions any more than the presence of one ensures their morality. — Baden
No, my abstinence is the means, not steak... I don't understand how that isn't clear to you — Agustino
If you claim that not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something with the steak, you are not eating the steak and using that act of not eating it as a means to justify the end of being moral.This is a strawman. Read my post again. Am I doing something TO IT, to the steak? NO. So yes, I am doing something by abstaining from eating steak, but not to the steak. — Agustino
So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat steak? :sExcept your abstinence is not possible without the steak. — m-theory
Once again, am I doing something TO IT? And yes, you are saying something correct. I am using the ACT of not eating it as a means of being moral. But it is not necessary that steak exists for me to be able to not eat it.If you claim that not eating steak is moral, then you are doing something with the steak, you are not eating and using that act of not eating it as a means to justify the end of being moral. — m-theory
So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat steak? :s — Agustino
Once again, am I doing something TO IT? And yes, you are saying something correct. I am using the ACT of not eating it as a means of being moral. But it is not necessary that steak exists for me to be able to not eat it. — Agustino
The suicide bomber has no doubt his action is moral. He literally bets his life on it. Yet he is mistaken. Does that surprise you somehow? Or does it surprise you that the man who gives to a beggar out of compassion but is not absolutely sure he has done the right thing is judged to have acted morally? Or that the woman who unthinkingly dives into a pond on seeing a drowning child is? — Baden
More to the point, do you actually agree with this statement or not? — Baden
What does the gif matter, folks? It wasn't part of an argument. Can we get on... — Baden
:s So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat it? That's absurd. I can and do abstain from all things which don't exist by default. I simply cannot not abstain from them.If steak does not exist you cannot abstain from eating it. — m-theory
My "not doing something to steak" - not eating it - is a means by which I am moral. According to you "not doing something to steak" is me "doing something to the steak"! Really...........If you are claiming that not eating is moral then you are doing something to the steak.
You are making steak a means to the end of being moral. — m-theory
So if steak doesn't exist, I cannot not eat it? That's absurd. I can and do abstain from all things which don't exist by default. — Agustino
My "not doing something to steak" - not eating it - is a means by which I am moral. According to you "not doing something to steak" is me "doing something to the steak"! Really........... — Agustino
This is false. If steak doesn't exist, then I am abstaining from it every single moment by default - it doesn't exist, how could I even eat it and thus not abstain from it?I said if steak does not exist you cannot abstain from eating it.
There is no opportunity to abstain from a thing which does not exist. — m-theory
Yes the action is. The action though has nothing to do with me doing something to steak. I'm not doing something to a steak by not eating it.Again the problem is with claiming that not doing something is moral.
If not doing something is moral not doing that thing is means to the end of being moral.
Otherwise what is the point of not doing it? — m-theory
The definition of abstaining.This is false. If steak doesn't exist, then I am abstaining from it every single moment by default - it doesn't exist, how could I even eat it and thus not abstain from it? — Agustino
1. restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something.
"abstaining from chocolate"
2. formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion.
"forty-one voted with the opposition, and some sixty more abstained"
synonyms: not vote, decline to vote
"262 voted against, 38 abstained"
Yes the action is. The action though has nothing to do with steak. I'm not doing something to a steak by not eating it. — Agustino
The definition of abstaining. — m-theory
So the definition of abstaining from steak is not eating steak correct?synonyms: not vote
If so, then this assertion of yours is false.If something does not exist there is no opportunity to abstain from it. — m-theory
I am using my abstinence, not the steak, as a means to the end of being moral.You are using it as means to and end of being moral. — m-theory
So the definition of abstaining from steak is not eating steak correct? — Agustino
If so, then this assertion of yours is false. — Agustino
I am using my abstinence, not the steak, as a means to the end of being moral. — Agustino
*facepalm* okay redefine terms as you will (because I wasn't using abstinence in that sense). Then I will state:No the definition is to exercise restraint from doing or enjoying something.
Abstinence is a self discipline in the face of an opportunity to do otherwise.
There is no opportunity to do otherwise in the case where the otherwise does not exist. — m-theory
So we go from using steak as a means to the end of not eating steak to using steak to make a moral claim >:OIf you claim not eating steak is moral then you have used steak to make a moral claim. — m-theory
Not riding unicorns is moralIf steak does not exist then you have made no claim at all. — m-theory
Yeah I have used it - in this case the word - to make a moral claim. So?You said that not eating steak was moral.
You have used steak to make a moral claim. — m-theory
Only in your mind. I refused to admit that I used steak as a means of being moral only.Before you refused to admit that you had used steak for anything. — m-theory
The moral claim isn't equivalent to being moral... really your logic is pathetic.If steak is required for the claim to be moral, then it is a means to an end of being moral. — m-theory
In my opinion:I'd be interested how one ought to solve this situation? — Question
Repeal and replace! :DOne of Planned Parenthood's tag mottos is "Every child a wanted child." Most of Planned Parenthood's efforts go into family planning. What have you got against that? — Bitter Crank
In my opinion masturbation is immoral, but since it only involves the self and not another person there are few grounds for "campaigning against it" so to speak. When you masturbate you're not harming anyone except at most yourself - so it's a sin like gluttony is a sin. The fact that someone commits such a sin is a personal matter, and doesn't trouble anyone else. Having sex though involves other people, hence sexual sins are more significant because they are also social sins - those are the sins which trouble us.Now that we have e gotten sex out of the way, we can talk about masturbation. — Question
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.