Philosophy Now Forum

The list of examples are those you do not act to prevent. That's a false equivalence. You are using my inability to prevent ALL of those events to equate it to your unwillingness to prevent ANY of those events. My limit is resources. Your limit is indifference. I have acted and continue to act agai...

I assume you are kidding. You must have world, national, and local news available wherever you are and you must have noticed the continuous terrorist attacks, honor killings, religious killlings (especially in Africa, the Middle East, and India--even the Philippines), the endless murders in this co...

Of course, just like you. There are people being harmed all over the world, in this country, in your state, probably even in your city that you will not act to prevent. And you based this opinion on what evidence? The difference between a meddler and someone defending himself and his own, is that a...

Beware the idiot-philosopher! Doesn't know what the 'philosophical' entails. Claims to be on a philosophy forum. Sorry... my understanding was we were on a philosophy forum... I also don't know what philosophical entails. Wants objective ethics. Argues against objectivity. I'll just go look for a po...

Belinda, you seriously think that the Human Rights Code of whatever declaration can't be falsified? Its falsification goes on daily in torture chambers, in closed and boarded-up abortion clinics, in church vestibules involving one priest and several altar boys, in police stations, etc. etc. So what...

And, of course, how could anything be "wrong" either -- even in some personal, instrumental or social sense? For the indifferent universe doesn't owe us anything personally, does not care about collectives, and does not have any opinion about whether or not our projects "work". ...

... who decides? That's the fundamental problem. Who decided that the sky is blue? Who decided what a 'wave' is? Who decided what 'frequency' is? Who decided what 'atom' is? Who decided what words mean? What kind of entities have the ability to make such decisions? You aren't going to like the answ...

A single photograph from space is all that is needed to falsify this and we already have those What flat Earthers believe is irrelevant because they are wrong and demonstrably so as well Sure. You can demonstrate that flat Earthers are "wrong". But can you demonstrate that you are "r...

Ok, then #1 is rejected unanimously. Show me a person who sits idly and watches their parents be murdered. Show me a person who sits idly and watches their daughter be raped. Interfering my life is using force to hurt or harm my person, my property, or those that matter to me. There it is ;) I am a...

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:00 am You'd be hard pressed to convince me that laws have any other purpose than to accrue power and wealth to those who make them and use them to control others.

Well, if you can't be convinced otherwise - then why engage you further? You admit to your dogma...

All distinctions are ultimately subjective because everything is mind dependent from our perspective But the more rigorous ones are called objective to differentiate between them them and all the others Precisely. Would you say 700 years of data, continuous downward trend in murders across continen...

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:29 pm Morality changes over time

OK, show me where it changed. When in the history of humanity did murder change from being right to being wrong?

The source of a factual assertion is irrelevant. It's either true or false. That's a false dichotomy. It's true, false, true until falsified or false until truified. "Earth is flat" was true. "Earth is round" was false. Then it changed. So exact same problem then. "Murder i...

The contents of your head are not empirical facts as you have previously stated that only you can know what is inside your head Sure they are. When it comes to values/preferences there are ways and means. Suppose a shop owner sets up a survey and asks all his customers "do you prefer vanilla o...

It would be falsified because God objectively both gives and assesses the value of a human life. The people pre-emptively taking such a life would be guilty of usurping the function and authority of God (or, as we say, "playing God"), and thus would be morally reprehensible...whether it w...