Page 13 of 13 [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13


User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Jun 2009, 4:26 pm

Orwell wrote:
The "potential person" argument makes menstruation murder, which is obviously not the case.

Menstruation is a natural process, not a willful deliberate act. You have stretched the analogy too far.



User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

01 Jun 2009, 4:33 pm

vibratetogether wrote:
I never conceded that they were valid. Looking at my quote, I don't see how you could conclude that. There is certainly a place for this viewpoint, and you are of course, welcome to hold this opinion and opine on it. However, when it comes to the real world, it is my view (and also imo the view of any rational person) that morality is relative.

Morality is first of all a normative and therefore lacks any kind of basis in empirical reality, so assigning any kind of existence relative or otherwise is nonsense. I might rather argue the only rational position is moral skepticism, on the one hand, and a descriptive view when it comes to observation of human society on the other. Since neither of those makes a proscription, any further pursuit of the point is pointless.

That is not to say that we should not hold opinions (even very strong opinions), or that we should not fight for our own version of morality, I think that's only natural. My problem is that this absolutist view does not account for my views, while my view would account for the absolutists.

It is not the "duty" aspect that I find absurd, in fact I would argue for some link between our sense of "duty" and our base nature, so it's not absurd so much as a false conclusion based on some hint of truth. It is the idea that there is some structured absolute "right" or "wrong" that I find absurd.

If you can find a system which involves proscriptions without valuations I'd like to hear it.

* here for the nachos.