Noises as usual based on ignorance and selective attention.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:52 amOh, ffs. Here's your argument, with the crucial improvement to #2.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:45 amI have to say you are VERY stupid [lack intelligence and cognitive powers] in this case because you deliberately or your skull is SO thick you cannot recognize what I have repeated a 'million' times, in addition you are unable to reproduce my argument precisely.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:59 am I understand your claims and argument perfectly well. And here's a summary.
1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is what produces a net-benefit for the individual and society. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.
And here's why your claims are false and your argument unsound.
A definition of good and evil is a choice, and therefore subjective. There are no abstract things - good and evil - that exist independently from opinion, and that we can describe. (And the same goes for benefit and disbenefit.) That's a metaphysical delusion, commonly harboured by the faithful. Yours is a statement of faith. So your claims and argument collapse there. End of story.
Your P2 is wrong! Should be;
2 Good is not-evil. Evil [listed within a specific taxonomy] is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
Note I deliberately did not define 'good' by itself since it is prone to various contentious issues.
Every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK.
E.g. genocide the killing of humans [of large group of humans up to billions or all humans] is definitely a net-negative to the individuals and humanity - thus highly evil as defined. You deny this?
1 Morality-proper is to do with good and evil, defined as follows.
2 Good is not-evil. Evil is what produces a net-disbenefit for the individual and society.
3 Morality-proper is not to do with opinions.
4 Good and evil exist independently from opinion.
5 What counts as a benefit and disbenefit for the individual and society is not a matter or opinion.
Now, how about actually addressing my refutation?
Just mantra-mumbling that 'every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK' DOES NOT WORK.
And this is because a 'taxonomy' and 'definition' of evil and disbenefit is a matter of choice, and is therefore subjective. Do you understand that? Just say if you don't, because I'll explain it really slowly and carefully, so that you can understand it.
Definitions, descriptions and taxonomies don't come in advance, as unarguable 'givens'. How ever you define or describe evil and disbenefit, they can be defined or described differently. So there's no moral objectivity here. Your argument DOES NOT establish the existence of moral facts.
As usual you missed my point, i.e. note the bolded,
- [Each and] Every act of what is evil within the taxonomy must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the definition of evil within a credible moral FSK.
E.g. genocide the killing of humans [of large group of humans up to billions or all humans] is definitely a net-negative to the individuals and humanity - thus highly evil as defined. You deny this?