Abortion III: Human Right?

[Dyakovo]

Because it's a bad objection.

It's an amazing objection.

Indeed.
Person A: X is moral.
Person B: X is not moral.

This clearly shows that morals a subjective.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'm a lazy person.

Being lazy doesn't excuse you from laziness.

I don't have to not be lazy according to my moral code.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It's an amazing objection.

Indeed.
Person A: X is moral.
Person B: X is not moral.

This clearly shows that morals a subjective.

Elegant in its simplicity. Brutal in its honesty. Ugly in its implications.

[Shnercropolis]

It's an amazing objection.

Indeed.
Person A: X is moral.
Person B: X is not moral.

This clearly shows that morals a subjective.

It could also show that nobody knows what the objective morals are.

You have a duty to pay your taxes, regardless of whether or not you recognize that as a duty or not.

Still subjective because it's derived from subjective morals which say taxation is necessary. Anarchists, with their own set of morals, would argue compulsory taxation is wrong.

but their beliefs don't factor into the equation. They have to pay taxes whether they think so or not, unless they manage to change the law. Duty is *imposed* onto someone, either by themselves or by someone else. Not believing in something doesn't make it go away.

[Caninope]

That's just intellectual laziness.

I'm a lazy person.

I still don't see an ought from an is.

Maybe the is-ought problem is flawed.

What? I'm not really sure how you can get around the is-ought problem with your ideals of morality.

They had different perceptions of the moral good though,

IE they had different morals.

If I think physics means that the Earth is on top of a stack of turtles, that doesn't mean my laws of physics are different than yours.

You can't even read the two essays I posted?

We're not editors. Or obligated.

I'm not your mother and you're not my infant. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

[New Werpland]

Because it's a bad objection.

It's an amazing objection.

Just like my objection to earth's sphericality!

[Caninope]

It's an amazing objection.

Indeed.
Person A: X is moral.
Person B: X is not moral.

This clearly shows that morals a subjective.

Person A: The Earth is a sphere type shape.
Person B: The Earth is flat.

Clearly shows reality is subjective.

[Dyakovo]

Indeed.
Person A: X is moral.
Person B: X is not moral.

This clearly shows that morals a subjective.

It could also show that nobody knows what the objective morals are.

Until something is proven to exist, the rational assumption is that it does not.

[Dyakovo]

Indeed.
Person A: X is moral.
Person B: X is not moral.

This clearly shows that morals a subjective.

Person A: The Earth is a sphere type shape.
Person B: The Earth is flat.

Clearly shows reality is subjective.

Except, Person B's claim has been empirically proven to be false.
Empirically prove that morals are objective and I will concede.

[Caninope]

It could also show that nobody knows what the objective morals are.

Until something is proven to exist, the rational assumption is that it does not.

That is not the rational assumption. The rational assumption is not to take a position on it.

At any rate, there is epistemic warrant to think morality exists objectively.

[Shnercropolis]

It could also show that nobody knows what the objective morals are.

Until something is proven to exist, the rational assumption is that it does not.

When you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

[Caninope]

Person A: The Earth is a sphere type shape.
Person B: The Earth is flat.

Clearly shows reality is subjective.

Except, Person B's claim has been empirically proven to be false.
Empirically prove that morals are objective and I will concede.

I don't have to empirically prove that morals are objective (partly because morals are abstract objects and also because nothing can ever be empirically proven, only empirically justified). I only need to epistemic justify it, which I have done.

[Dyakovo]

Until something is proven to exist, the rational assumption is that it does not.

That is not the rational assumption.

Wrong.

[Shnercropolis]

Person A: The Earth is a sphere type shape.
Person B: The Earth is flat.

Clearly shows reality is subjective.

Except, Person B's claim has been empirically proven to be false.
Empirically prove that morals are objective and I will concede.

it's impossible to empirically prove something.

[Dyakovo]

Except, Person B's claim has been empirically proven to be false.
Empirically prove that morals are objective and I will concede.

I don't have to empirically prove that morals are objective.

Then you'll not convince me that you're right. So I guess we're done here.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'm a lazy person.

Maybe the is-ought problem is flawed.

What? I'm not really sure how you can get around the is-ought problem with your ideals of morality.

Maybe I should improvise then.

If I think physics means that the Earth is on top of a stack of turtles, that doesn't mean my laws of physics are different than yours.

Physics doesn't study subjective phenomena. It's of the world.

Morals, as explained elegantly by Dyakovo, are subjective. It's of the mind.

I'm not your mother and you're not my infant. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

Gee, that's a really clever line. In fact, it's so clever that I've heard it come from the mouths of dozens of shitposters on 4chan.

Of course you're not my mother. My mother wouldn't support restricting her own rights based on bullshit perceptions on morals.

but their beliefs don't factor into the equation. They have to pay taxes whether they think so or not, unless they manage to change the law. Duty is *imposed* onto someone, either by themselves or by someone else. Not believing in something doesn't make it go away.

Doesn't mean their morals are the same. Belief is 105% of morals.

[New Werpland]

Indeed.
Person A: X is moral.
Person B: X is not moral.

This clearly shows that morals a subjective.

Elegant in its simplicity. Brutal in its honesty. Ugly in its implications.

And it made me want to vomit.

[Caninope]

That is not the rational assumption.

Wrong.

I know somebody named Gokhan who lives in Turkey.

You cannot empirically prove that this is so using your limited knowledge of me, but this doesn't mean that you don't have epistemic warrant for this claim.

[Dyakovo]

Elegant in its simplicity. Brutal in its honesty. Ugly in its implications.

And it made me want to vomit.

You'll get over it. Or not.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Indeed.
Person A: X is moral.
Person B: X is not moral.

This clearly shows that morals a subjective.

Person A: The Earth is a sphere type shape.
Person B: The Earth is flat.

Clearly shows reality is subjective.

Call me when morals are empirical.

Wrong.

I know somebody named Gokhan who lives in Turkey.

Support this claim.

[Dyakovo]

Wrong.

I know somebody named Gokhan who lives in Turkey.

You cannot empirically prove that this is so using your limited knowledge of me

It does mean that I have no reason to believe it is true.

[Shnercropolis]

If I think physics means that the Earth is on top of a stack of turtles, that doesn't mean my laws of physics are different than yours.

Physics doesn't study subjective phenomena. It's of the world.

Morals, as explained elegantly by Dyakovo, are subjective. It's of the mind.

so you disprove his belief that morals are objective by stating your belief that morals are subjective. Nice.

[Shnercropolis]

Person A: The Earth is a sphere type shape.
Person B: The Earth is flat.

Clearly shows reality is subjective.

Call me when morals are empirical.

if you only believe in empirical evidence, then how could you possibly believe that anything exists?

[Caninope]

Person A: The Earth is a sphere type shape.
Person B: The Earth is flat.

Clearly shows reality is subjective.

Call me when morals are empirical.

Empirical is not the same thing as real or objective.

I know somebody named Gokhan who lives in Turkey.

Support this claim.

I can very easily do so, but I'm choosing not to do so. There's a reason for this.

I'm trying to point out that you can have epistemic warrant without seeing physical proof in and of itself.

[Caninope]

I know somebody named Gokhan who lives in Turkey.

You cannot empirically prove that this is so using your limited knowledge of me

It does mean that I have no reason to believe it is true.

Sure you do.

I told you he exists. That provides some epistemic warrant.