absolute vs. subjective morality

[Slartibartfast]

1. Where did I make that claim.
2. What about my actual argument? Are you going to ever address it? (The one liner.)
3. Why quote the argument I specifically told you to ignore (to prevent you from being side tract) but ignore the argument that was specifically simplified to fit your personal criteria (one sentence argument)?

[MD Marketers]

Have you not been arguing that objective morality does exist?

"I believe that is the objective side to morality. If there is an objective side to morality it means that morality is not completely subjective but rather partially subjective all if the time."

"I want you to show that "it is wrong". Show me one scenario where what I have stated is wrong."

"My argument is that morality is not purely subjective. "

"My argument is that there is an underlying principle that acts as an objective underlying principle of morality (this then means that morality is not purely subjective."

"The objective underlying principle can be summarised into the three following words
"DO NO HARM""

[Slartibartfast]

1. Who are you arguing with? I never made that claim. (Straw man argument)

2. That scenario is from a different thread and was formulated as an ethical dilemma because I was curious on your thoughts about it. I never tried to use it to prove any point of mine and never stated what I think was morally right or wrong in that situation. (Mis direction/ red herring) this was asked so I can better understand your point of view ans was never used as any part of my argument.

3. I never said objectively wrong exists.

MD, do you even understand my argument? It is literally one sentence. Just disprove that one sentence.

[MD Marketers]

SBF,

INVALID question:
"Directly disprove the following statement:
Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation"

What situation?
Straw man question?
Your argument is not one sentence. Who are you trying to fool?
"given situation"
"given situation"
"given situation"
Objectively wrong isn't a subset of Objective Morality?
Did you not write the things I quoted you wrote above?

[Slartibartfast]

Directly disprove the following statement.

"Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation" is the objective underlying principle of morality.

I.e. it can be used to make a morally acceptable choice in any situation.

MD you therefore need to come up with just one situation where it is not possible to use that principle to come up with a morally acceptable choice/decision.

Having just one example that disproves it means that it cannot be true in all instances I.e. it is not objective. There you go, I made your entire counter argument for you. All you need to do is bring it home with one example.

[Slartibartfast]

SBF,

INVALID question:
"Directly disprove the following statement:
Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation"

What situation?
Straw man question?
Your argument is not one sentence. Who are you trying to fool?
"given situation"
"given situation"
"given situation"
Objectively wrong isn't a subset of Objective Morality?
Did you not write the things I quoted you wrote above?

You misquote me by leaving out half of the sentence and then say the sentence makes no sense. Hahahahaha. Ignore your post. Read my post directly above.

I am saying is hold true in every situation. To disprove it you must "give a situation" where it does not hold true. What are you not getting?

[MD Marketers]

Ehem,
Given situation?

[MD Marketers]

"Directly disprove the following statement:
Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation"

This means I must "give" my own situation?

That's the part I am not getting

Why didn't you say:
"Do as little net harm as possible in A given situation"?

If you wanted me to give my own "situation".
What kind of logic is this?

[Slartibartfast]

"Given situation" in this context means any situation in which the person making the moral decision is involved.

I am therefore saying it hold true for all situations regardless of what the situation is.

I showed it earlier with a bunch of situations that were given by someone else. I used the givem situations to prove my statement true.

To disprove me you must give me a situation where I cannot prove my statement true.

I worded it to give you the freedom to give me any situation you want.

I am purposely being as easy on you as possible

[MD Marketers]

Why didn't you say:
"Do as little net harm as possible in A given situation"
Instead of
"Do as little net harm as possible in THE given situation"
?

If you wanted me to give my own "situation".
What kind of logic is this?

Your last message you changed "the" into "a".
This is dishonesty SBF.
I would rather not continue until you stop being dishonest.
This is a game we are playing here & you just broke the rules.
All unfair games must play over.

[Slartibartfast]

So now that you seem to finally understand what I have been saying all along, what are your thoughts/ counter arguments if any?

[MD Marketers]

Your last message you changed "the" into "a".
This is dishonesty SBF.
I would rather not continue until you stop being dishonest.
This is a game we are playing here & you just broke the rules.

[Slartibartfast]

Why didn't you say:
"Do as little net harm as possible in A given situation"
Instead of
"Do as little net harm as possible in THE given situation"
?

If you wanted me to give my own "situation".
What kind of logic is this?

Your last message you changed "the" into "a".
This is dishonesty SBF.
I would rather not continue until you stop being dishonest.
This is a game we are playing here & you just broke the rules.
All unfair games must play over.

Just quoting this before you change it again. But yeah... see post above and respond in kind.

[MD Marketers]

So you're just going to sit there and dishonestly change the question to win an argument?
Why did you change the question?
Find someone else to play with.
When you start back being honest I will continue where we left off

Here is where you placed the question:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=632803&start=30#p8758103

No one has posted a "situation" before that post in this thread. Only in the other thread you posted a situation. Which is obviously what you wanted me to respond to.
Such blatant dishonesty is appalling.

Just admit you made a mistake

[Slartibartfast]

Do you mean I re-worded my argument or that I went back and edited a post?

Because I have been constantly re-wording the same argument to get you to understand what I was arguing (and it has clearly worked). I'm not hiding that at all.

If it's a post where you think I went back and edited a post to change my argument, please point it out. Quote the entire message before and after my edit so everyone else (including me) can see my mistake. The last thing I want is an argument thread that is impossible to follow because it is inconsistent. And yes I am completely serious.

[MD Marketers]

^ see above
This is the situation from other thread:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=631746&p=8757693#p8755829
24/06 8:48am

[Slartibartfast]

Directly disprove the following statement.

"Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation" is the objective underlying principle of morality.

Any situation can be A situation.

But I am not interested in just any situation. THE situation I am interested in is THE situation in which a moral decision must be made. It may be THE situation I am currently experiencing or THE situation that you give to me for consideration. Sure it may be any situation and will most definitely be A situation but I am not interested in just any situation. I am only interested in THE situation currently being considered. That was my thinking. Maybe someone with a degree in english can explain where I may have gotten the tense of my wording wrong. I'm an engineer and not know for my perfect language.

However, the meaning of what I was arguing never changed. Also, I replied in that other thread and expected your replies to that statement to stay in that thread. That is how threads on forums work.

I also stated that exact argument in the other thread. Why didnt you reply to it there?

[MD Marketers]

Directly disprove the following statement.

"Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation" is the objective underlying principle of morality.

Any situation can be A situation.

But I am not interested in just any situation. THE situation I am interested in is THE situation in which a moral decision must be made. It may be THE situation I am currently experiencing or THE situation that you give to me for consideration. Sure it may be any situation and will most definitely be A situation but I am not interested in just any situation. I am only interested in THE situation currently being considered. That was my thinking. Maybe someone with a degree in english can explain where I may have gotten the tense of my wording wrong. I'm an engineer and not know for my perfect language.

However, the meaning of what I was arguing never changed. Also, I replied in that other thread and expected your replies to that statement to stay in that thread. That is how threads on forums work.

I also stated that exact argument in the other thread. Why didnt you reply to it there?

[Slartibartfast]

If you have a problem and rather use your wording note that my original phrase was "Do no harm" and that my statement as well as my statement modified with the word "a" instead of "the" are both just derivatives so in the end it doesn't matter.

So feel free to present a situation that disproves the statement that I have put forth. Feel free to use whichever derived statement makes you comfortable.

My argument is that there is an underlying principle that acts as an objective underlying principle of morality (this then means that morality is not purely subjective.

The objective underlying principle can be summarised into the three following words
"DO NO HARM"

This simple phrase can be expanded to say "Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation".

For MD sake, this simple phrase can be expanded to say "Do as little net harm as possible in a/any given situation".

[Slartibartfast]

Hear what, just to get this moving for now let's say it was a mistake and move on. I have made an edited version just for you above so let's move on.

[MD Marketers]

Hear what, just to get this moving for now let's say it was a mistake and move on. I have made an edited version just for you above so let's move on.

I told you already I'm not playing that game with you until you address your dishonesty.
I already pointed out how you have been extremely dishonest in this discussion.
I have no more desire to discuss the challenge you made any further until you address the dishonesty I pointed out.
See my post above.
Get back to me after you address this.

It makes no sense for me to have an honest discussion with a dishonest individual unless he can justify his dishonesty

[Slartibartfast]

Btw I did not respond to some of the things you said because I want to deal with my original statement first. Once you deal with it I will come back and point out all of your errors in your previous arguments

[K74T]

How's about you guys knock it out at 3:00 in the school's parking lot?

[Slartibartfast]

K74T right. We ruining this thread. Will move all irrelevant parts of this discussion over to PMs.

MD I'll pm you with replies to all of your points raised. In the mean timey argument still stands for all others to disprove.

[MD Marketers]

Btw I did not respond to some of the things you said because I want to deal with my original statement first. Once you deal with it I will come back and point out all of your errors in your previous arguments

Then we have met an impasse:

My stance:
I refuse to discuss this topic further with you if you refuse to defend your apparent dishonesty.

Your stance:
You refuse to disprove your apparent dishonesty until I discuss something further with you.

One of us must yield or it's
Game Over

[MD Marketers]

K74T right. We ruining this thread. Will move all irrelevant parts of this discussion over to PMs.

MD I'll pm you with replies to all of your points raised. In the mean timey argument still stands for all others to disprove.

... and I will reply all your pm's here
Your dishonest games never cease to end.
I'm not giving you an opportunity to hide your apology after you choose to publicly accuse me of making strawman & red herring arguments.

[Slartibartfast]

Well don't say I didn't try to save you from the embarrassment of letting it be publicly displayed what a dishonest idiot you are.

Here is my argument. I am going to break it down as simply as I can.

In my argument, the following words shall take on the meanings and context described below. I understand these words are general and can take on different meanings but I am aiming to streamline the argument and keep it simple.

HARM - Any injury/pain/discomfort that may be physical/emotional/mental etc.
BAD - Something that brings harm to someone or increases the effects of harm on people etc.
GOOD - Something that reduces the effects of harm on a person or a group of people.
RIGHT - An action made with intention to do something good
WRONG - An action made with intention to do something bad

My argument is that morality is not purely subjective.

My argument is that there is an underlying principle that acts as an objective underlying principle of morality (this then means that morality is not purely subjective.

The objective underlying principle can be summarised into the three following words
"DO NO HARM"

This simple phrase can be expanded to say "Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation".

Re-quoted so you don't have to look back

I will label areas where you are dihonest as "D1, D2 etc. and I will label areas where you are an idiot as "I1, I2... etc.

I will limit my quotations of us to this thread only and I was trying to keep my posts in this thread separate from the other thread. I1. Yes I copy and pasted a few arguments from that other thread because they were relevant here but read back and note that all post here can stand up to arguments without having to refer to any other thread.

Starting on Page 2 of the other thread

You keep making the claim:
This act is bad in all instances because it cannot be proven good in this instance.
This is an invalid argument for Objective Morality.

I2, D1
I equated bad to something that causes harm. I said an act was inherently bad if it caused harm.

This is the question:

"Directly disprove the following statement:
Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation"

I3. You quoted part of the statement
This was the situation: I4, You somehow assumed I was talking about another thread and brought it over here to respond to this point

"Now let's make it more interesting. I'll give this example a bit more depth since that is what you same to favour.

1. You have a friend that is an amazing doctor and has asked you to come and volunteer with him in a remote Kenyan village where there has been an outbreak of some unknown disease. You have no medical training but he just needs an extra set of hands to help. The village is not large enough for the UN or any large foreign body to take an interest in it but you friend has been there before and has an emotional connection to the people of the village. This makes him the only doctor that anyone would get to go to the village to save the lives of the people.

2. On the plane to the African continent, you and your friend begin talking. He tells you how amazingly smart, wise, fun, warm and polite these people are. He then tells you how last time he was there he ended up sleeping with the village leader's wife but the village leader did not know.

3. You guys reach and set up everything (you friend got sponsorship for all the medicine and tents and stuff). The sick villagers start pouring in. They look like they are at different stages of sickness. Some have a slight cough and some look like they are already on the verge of death. You friend tells you some villagers have died from the outbreak already.

4. The village leader and two supporters walk in with an AK-47's that he kept from years ago when he was in a militia. The village leader says that his wife was pregnant with a child after your friend left and that his wife said it wasn't the village leader's own. She said that she had been raped by your friend. Although the village leader tried to be understanding, she still ended up killing herself and the baby out of shame

5. Knowing what is about to happen, all of the villagers move away from your friend. The two supporters force you to stand next to your friend or they will shoot you.

6. The village leader says that the actions from your friend caused the loss of a life close to him and that he must repay in kind.

7. Under normal circumstances, the leader of the village would shoot your friend dead on the spot but he understands that your friend is needed to help save his people. So he decides that taking a life close to your friend would be acceptable.

8. Seeing that you are the only alternative, he turns to you to make the decision. You must therefore choose whether to let the village leader kill you so that your friend can go ahead and save the lives of the villagers or kill your friend thereby allowing you to live but risking the death of all the villagers. To make things interesting, you also have a gun under your shirt that you can use at anytime but once you make any threatening move everyone with guns would start shooting risking the death of you, your friend and any number of villagers.

9. You suggest postponing the decision until after the villagers are cured but the village leader is hysterical and says "No! This happens now!". He let's you know that if no decision is made he will kill your friend and hold you (as the person closest to the doctor) responsible for the lives of his people. He will not listen to any reasoning beyond this as your tell him that you are not a doctor.


P.S. Your friend has already told you that the disease is not contagious and you brought all of your own food, water and supplies so you are at no risk of getting or dying from the disease.

P.P.S. Your friend tries telling the leader that the sex was consensual but the leader knows that that is exactly what a guilty man would say."

I5, D2, You cut out the ending of the post shown below

So MD, what is the morally right decision for you to make in this scenario and why?
Would you make that decision?
If not, what decision/course of action will you take and why?

Note, there is no answer for this that I consider wrong or right. Just curious to hear your views. This should have made it clear that this was not part of any of my arguments

My hypothetical answer:

"Yes it is bad in this instance"

D3, I6 and I7 because this is too stupid. You treat it as part of my argument when I say it isn't and then answer an irrelevant answer. Gave it 2 stupid points because it was beyond retarded. What is bad in this instance MD? The proper answer is supposed take the form of a moral decision that you will make

My answer does not prove objectively wrong exists because:

for something to be "objectively wrong" it has to be wrong in all hypothetical instances.

I8. I never argued something was objectively wrong. IDK where this arguments is coming from

Words to research:

Objectively

Subjectively

Wrong

Claim:
Verb
1. State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
Noun;
1. An assertion that something is true.

Your Invalid Claim:

This act is bad in all instances (objectively) because it cannot be proven as "not bad" in this this instance.

Example of a valid claim:

This act is bad in all instances because it cannot be proven as good in any instance.

After considering your errors you can see that the rest here is irrelevant and therefore ignored

SBF,

INVALID question:
"Directly disprove the following statement:
Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation"I9, D4 because you partially quoted and then responded to the partial quote.... again

What situation? I10
Straw man question?I11
Your argument is not one sentence. Who are you trying to fool?I12
"given situation"I13
"given situation"I14
"given situation"I15
Objectively wrong isn't a subset of Objective Morality?Objectively wrong would mean any action carried out with the intention of creating as much harm as possible.
Did you not write the things I quoted you wrote above?D5. Yes but I was misquoted in one instance and then and an irrelevant argument was also quoted

Ehem,
Given situation?I16... Seriously at this point I was considering that you may actually be legally retarded

"Directly disprove the following statement:
Do as little net harm as possible in the given situation"I17

This means I must "give" my own situation?I18

That's the part I am not getting

Why didn't you say:
"Do as little net harm as possible in A given situation"?D6 You now clearly understand what I have said but refuse to reply to it. Instead you carry on with irrelevant arguments

If you wanted me to give my own "situation".
What kind of logic is this?I19 and P1 for pettyness.

Why didn't you say:
"Do as little net harm as possible in A given situation"
Instead of
"Do as little net harm as possible in THE given situation"
? I20, P2. Still irrelevant and petty

If you wanted me to give my own "situation".I21
What kind of logic is this?I22

Your last message you changed "the" into "a".D7. The previous message was unedited
This is dishonesty SBF.P3
I would rather not continue until you stop being dishonest.D8. You lied about what I did and accuse me of being dishonest
This is a game we are playing here & you just broke the rules.P4
All unfair games must play over.P5

You know what. I'm tired of this. So far I still have half of your replies to deal with and have already founf
22 instances of you being an idiot and/or wrong
8 instances of you being dishonest
5 instances of you being petty

It is clear that you were wrong when you said that none of morality was objective. I have shown and illustrated that part of morality is. You are unable to disprove this and continue to sidetrack the discussion to irrelevant arguments to hide the fact that You, MD Marketing, were completely wrong in your assertion. You have been proven wrong and are unable to defend what you have said.

I will no longer respond to any more of your irrelevant arguments. Either you prove yourself right or accept that you are wrong by default. So which is it?

[MD Marketers]

Since I am a bit confused I will simplify your labels of me, for you to verify:

I am an idiot because:

I1. I addressed "an argument you copied" after you said "this argument is yet to be directly addressed"?

Out of curiosity:
Why didn't you state afterwards that you don't really want anyone to "directly address" the copied argument. Especially if your going to start calling people "idiots" for addressing it?

It's as if your asking people a question just to call them an idiot for answering it.
What exactly do you think an "idiot" is?

You said:
"I was trying to keep my posts in this thread separate from the other thread. I1. Yes I copy and pasted a few arguments from that other thread because they were relevant here but read back and note that all post here can stand up to arguments without having to refer to any other thread"

How exactly does "you copying another thread" equate to you "trying not to separate this thread from another thread"?
The very statement "I am copying this from another thread" is the exact opposite of "trying to separate this thread from another thread".
Just rewrite the argument if you really are trying to keep it separate why do you even bother saying that you are copying this from another thread.

Let's deal with this before we move on to the other labels.

[Slartibartfast]

It is clear that you were wrong when you said that none of morality was objective. I have shown and illustrated that part of morality is. You are unable to disprove this and continue to sidetrack the discussion to irrelevant arguments to hide the fact that You, MD Marketers, were completely wrong in your assertion. You have been proven wrong and are unable to defend what you have said.

I will no longer respond to any more of your irrelevant arguments. Either you prove yourself right or accept that you are wrong by default. So which is it?

Clearly you have gone with the later.

Btw I mispelled your name earlier. I corrected it in this quotation. Just in case you decide thaþ was dishonest of me

[MD Marketers]

Stop that, each time I directly answer your replies you change the subject.
I am not doing this anymore with you.
Reply my last reply