Abortion III: Human Right?

[Dyakovo]

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.

No, the belief that morals are objective is disproven by the existence of different moral codes. Not quite the same thing.

[Caninope]

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

No, the belief that morals are objective is disproven by the existence of different moral codes. Not quite the same thing.

Only if we take morality to be the perception of morality.

[Dyakovo]

Call me when morals are empirical.

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

This post is empirical evidence of your existence.

[Shnercropolis]

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

No, the belief that morals are objective is disproven by the existence of different moral codes. Not quite the same thing.

Belief has nothing to do with objective reality. Something can be true whether or not anyone believes it is true.

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

This post is empirical evidence of your existence.

it is not proof though. How can you prove everything isn't a figment of your imagination?

[Dyakovo]

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

Sure you do.

I told you he exists.

That is not a reason to believe it is true.

[New Werpland]

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

This post is empirical evidence of your existence.

Or it could be empirical evidence of a bunch of colorful lights which resemble a post, but I dunno.

[Caninope]

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

This post is empirical evidence of your existence.

Not to a universal skeptic.

[Caninope]

Sure you do.

I told you he exists.

That is not a reason to believe it is true.

You don't agree that me telling you that something happened gives you more reason to believe that this happened than you previously had?

[Dyakovo]

No, the belief that morals are objective is disproven by the existence of different moral codes. Not quite the same thing.

Belief has nothing to do with objective reality. Something can be true whether or not anyone believes it is true.

And?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Call me when morals are empirical.

if you only believe in empirical evidence, then how could you possibly believe that I exist?

Really? You're asking whether somebody I'm observing right now exists?

Honestly, this logic depends upon philosophy being a science. It's not.

Call me when morals are empirical.

Empirical is not the same thing as real or objective.

It's already been firmly established morals aren't objective, so I didn't feel like reiterating that.

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

Because you can't. Gokhan is obviously a fabrication for the purpose of demonstration.

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

As nice as it is discussing philosophy with you, it is too broad a subject for the abortion thread even if it's for explaining your stance. Go make a new one.

[Caninope]

Belief has nothing to do with objective reality. Something can be true whether or not anyone believes it is true.

And?

If moral propositions can have truth values, then it could very well be the case that morality exists regardless of our understanding of it.

[Dyakovo]

That is not a reason to believe it is true.

You don't agree that me telling you that something happened gives you more reason to believe that this happened than you previously had?

No, not inherently so.

[Mavorpen]

No, the belief that morals are objective is disproven by the existence of different moral codes. Not quite the same thing.

Belief has nothing to do with objective reality. Something can be true whether or not anyone believes it is true.

This post is empirical evidence of your existence.

it is not proof though. How can you prove everything isn't a figment of your imagination?

Don't shift the goal posts now. He never said anything about "proof."

Science doesn't deal in "proof" anyway. It deals in probabilities.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This post is empirical evidence of your existence.

it is not proof though. How can you prove everything isn't a figment of your imagination?

Might as well argue there's a narwhal horn shoved in his skull, because you're not a moral belief.

[Dyakovo]

And?

If moral propositions can have truth values, then it could very well be the case that morality exists regardless of our understanding of it.

Prove it. I've already laid out what I'll accept as valid evidence.

[Shnercropolis]

if you only believe in empirical evidence, then how could you possibly believe that I exist?

Really? You're asking whether somebody I'm observing right now exists?

Honestly, this logic depends upon philosophy being a science. It's not.

You're observing me right now? With what? You eyes? How do you know you're not dreaming? How do you know your eyes are real?
At some point empiricism falls apart.

[Dyakovo]

Belief has nothing to do with objective reality. Something can be true whether or not anyone believes it is true.

it is not proof though. How can you prove everything isn't a figment of your imagination?

Don't shift the goal posts now. He never said anything about "proof."

Science doesn't deal in "proof" anyway. It deals in probabilities.

To be fair, yes, I actually did due to lazy phrasing.

[Mavorpen]

Don't shift the goal posts now. He never said anything about "proof."

Science doesn't deal in "proof" anyway. It deals in probabilities.

To be fair, yes, I actually did due to lazy phrasing.

Well, I was referring to that specific post of yours that he was responding to. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

[Shnercropolis]

If moral propositions can have truth values, then it could very well be the case that morality exists regardless of our understanding of it.

Prove it. I've already laid out what I'll accept as valid evidence.

It's probably not provable. But we've proven that it's a possibility.

[Dyakovo]

Really? You're asking whether somebody I'm observing right now exists?

Honestly, this logic depends upon philosophy being a science. It's not.

You're observing me right now? With what? You eyes? How do you know you're not dreaming? How do you know your eyes are real?
At some point empiricism falls apart.

Yes. Yes. Through experience in differentiating between dreams and reality. I can touch them.

[Dyakovo]

Prove it. I've already laid out what I'll accept as valid evidence.

It's probably not provable.

Not my problem.

[Caninope]

It's already been firmly established morals aren't objective, so I didn't feel like reiterating that.

It's not been established at all.

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

Because you can't. Gokhan is obviously a fabrication for the purpose of demonstration.

Actually, I can. See here. Picture and last name removed for privacy purposes.

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

As nice as it is discussing philosophy with you, it is too broad a subject for the abortion thread even if it's for explaining your stance. Go make a new one.

I've been trying to demonstrate that a duty exists. That's the importance of this.

[Caninope]

You don't agree that me telling you that something happened gives you more reason to believe that this happened than you previously had?

No, not inherently so.

So you admit that statements from witnesses can serve as epistemic warrant in some cases?

[Caninope]

If moral propositions can have truth values, then it could very well be the case that morality exists regardless of our understanding of it.

Prove it. I've already laid out what I'll accept as valid evidence.

Your definition of valid evidence (empirical only) is a silly definition.

There are a number of things that can serve as valid epistemic warrant.

[Shnercropolis]

It's probably not provable.

Not my problem.

Neither is it mine. Then again, since we've proven that there's a possiblity that morality is objective regardless of our understanding, it means you can't *definitively* say morality is subjective, and the discussion may continue.