My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:16 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:53 pmOkay. You're a dishonest dodger
In my opinion (which is all any of us have, right?) you are an amoralist. You reject moral fact as a possbility, say we each only have opinions. Would you prefer I call you moral opinionist?
"Moral opinionist" is a good term for Peter and the moral fact deniers who are merely wallowing in the mud pools of their moral opinions.

I am confident you are on target with your intuition and belief 'there are moral facts' based on various evidences, at least with reference to slavery. The limitations with such an approach is it cannot give a high confidence level or credibility to its truth.

To increase the degrees of credibility, all facts must be verified and justified [fundamentally via the empirical] through the specific FSK [the scientific FSK being the best at present].
As such for a moral fact to be credible it must be verified and justified via a moral FSK with data inputted from the scientific FSK. I have done that in the various threads and posts I've raised.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:54 am
But you are sticking with your story that telling untruths isn't lying unless somebody is being seperated from property?
Well, that, or sumthin' close to it, was my original assertion, yeah.
This is no better than VA's mad claim that morality doesn't talk about good or bad.

You are both changing the thing you can't explain because you like your explanation so much you have to re-order the world for your own benefit.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by henry quirk »

You are both changing the thing you can't explain because you like your explanation so much you have to re-order the world for your own benefit.
This assessment, comin' from a man who gets his morality from the back of a cereal box, who can't say why rape is wrong, who sez lyin' is wrong just becuz, is worthless. Do better.

No, natural rights don't change; my understanding and appreciation of them deepens, is all. I change the descriptive language only.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

But you are sticking with your story that telling untruths isn't lying unless somebody is being seperated from property?
That's how you explain that lying is bad, even though you understand that lies need excuses in a way that truth doesn't?

You're not going to get anywhere with personal insults Henry. You have a logic problem, it cannot be fixed that way.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by henry quirk »

"Moral opinionist" is a good term for Peter and the moral fact deniers who are merely wallowing in the mud pools of their moral opinions.
They're amoralists. Absolutely worthless as a measure of anything (not a one can tell you why rape is wrong, for example). They're sometimes useful to bounce notions off of, but that's about it.
I am confident you are on target with your intuition and belief 'there are moral facts' based on various evidences, at least with reference to slavery. The limitations with such an approach is it cannot give a high confidence level or credibility to its truth.
Well, I'm just goin' with what's there. I just try to describe what everybody, includin' the amoralists, know already.

You've set a much harder task for yourself, one, I think, that's takin' you down the wrong path. But, I already said my piece on that.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by henry quirk »

But you are sticking with your story that telling untruths isn't lying unless somebody is being seperated from property?
Nope.
That's how you explain that lying is bad
Nope.
even though you understand that lies need excuses in a way that truth doesn't?
Covered that.
You're not going to get anywhere with personal insults Henry.
Sure I am. Look at you.
You have a logic problem
Nope.
it cannot be fixed that way.
No fix was required. The thing is immutable; I'm just learnin' to describe it better.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:29 am
But you are sticking with your story that telling untruths isn't lying unless somebody is being seperated from property?
Nope.
So what changed?

And how do you derive the wrongness of lying from that man owns himself thing if you aren't doing that reduction any more?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by henry quirk »

So what changed?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:54 am
Read it.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:54 am
But you are sticking with your story that telling untruths isn't lying unless somebody is being seperated from property?
Well, that, or sumthin' close to it, was my original assertion, yeah.

Ultimately, I suppose that depends on how far you wanna take the notion of property and theft.

At its most basic a lie is meant to get someone to think and do sumthin' that person wouldn't think and/or do otherwise. The theft, if we can call it that, is to that person's liberty. Even if no tangible property (car, money, house, etc) was lost, the person lied to has been misused, taken advantage of, misdirected to think and act or choose in a way, as I say, he might not otherwise.
There's nothing there Henry. You are still defining lies as a property crime, but now you have added some uinintelligle mysticism to let you make up new things for "property" to mean on the fly.

You haven't fixed the actual issue that the essence of lying is the untruth, and that it is fucking obvious that I am right on this.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by henry quirk »

You haven't fixed the actual issue that the essence of lying is the untruth, and that it is fucking obvious that I am right on this.
As I say: there was nuthin' to fix. And: no, the guy who still won't tell me why rape is wrong, is not right.

Love the new thread about me: insults... 👍
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

You aren't morally superior Henry, you are just a bit thick.

You should think about this tomorrow because today you are only thinking about staying afloat. I want you to take a breath at some point and ask your inner Henry if he actually believes that lying is a subset of stealing rather than a seperate thing which is wrong because it involves telling untruths.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by henry quirk »

You aren't morally superior Henry
Of course I'm not.
you are just a bit thick.
Absolutely.

Let me know when you have sumthin' to back your view on lyin' (it's wrong cuz it's wrong is kinda vacant) and when you decide why rape is wrong.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:46 am 1. I do not define 'morality' in terms of morally right or wrong.
Don't worry VA, Henry can't doubt you for this one now, he just redefined "lies" and they are no longer deceptions juxtaposed to the truth.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35217&start=270
So you aren't the stupid one any more.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by promethean75 »

I've always found Voluptuous Aardvark's posts to be informative and well composed.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:09 am
You are both changing the thing you can't explain because you like your explanation so much you have to re-order the world for your own benefit.
This assessment, comin' from a man who gets his morality from the back of a cereal box, who can't say why rape is wrong, who sez lyin' is wrong just becuz, is worthless. Do better.

No, natural rights don't change; my understanding and appreciation of them deepens, is all. I change the descriptive language only.
You still can not yes see just how ABSURD and RIDICULOUS it is to claim there are 'natural rights' but the only way these 'rights' can exist is by enforcing them with the EXACT OPPOSITE.

That is; you claim the way to enforce the 'natural rights' of life, liberty, and property of human beings is done by depriving human beings of life, liberty, or property.

Which is really just your OWN self made-up rules, in an attempt to 'try to' "justify" when you take the life, liberty, and property of others, which you are still continually doing.

'your' claims here, and enforcement of them "henry quirk", could not be more absurd and self-contradictory.
Post Reply