Are morals universal?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Are morals universal? » Are morals universal?

Are morals universal?
Are my morals your morals? Should I force my morals on you?

Page: First 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Are morals universal?

Wolfman
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138

Posted 10/30/09 - 12:53 AM:	#111
James S Saint wrote: 1) A moral is what is necessary as a fundamental concern 2) Support is necessary on a fundamental level of concern 3) Love is support as a fundamental concern 4) Thus, Love is necessary as a fundamental concern 5) Thus, to love is a moral. This is rampant equivocating. Your premises don't even make sense, and your wording is awkward and abstruse. If you presented this argument to a philosophy class at any accredited university, no one would know what the hell you are talking about.
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/30/09 - 01:05 AM:	#112
In other words, you have no idea of how to logically debate and thus choose to merely ad hom your opponent with derogatory claims. On the contrary, your retort would be "stricken from the record" (for being UNethical ..haha). And in case you hadn't noticed, I was editing the exact wording and highlights to try to make it more obvious; 1) A moral is what is necessary as a fundamental concern 2) Support is necessary as a fundamental concern 3) Love is support 4) Thus, Love is necessary as a fundamental concern 5) Thus, to love is a moral. Edited by James S Saint on 10/30/09 - 01:15 AM

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/30/09 - 01:18 AM:	#113
And since you obviously haven't studied logic; Main Entry: equiv·o·cate Pronunciation: \i-?kwi-v?-?k?t\ Function: intransitive verb Inflected Form(s): equiv·o·cat·ed; equiv·o·cat·ing Date: 1590 1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Kant Chocula
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009
Location: North East Ohio

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 29

Posted 10/30/09 - 01:34 AM:	#114
James S Saint wrote: 1) A moral is what is necessary as a fundamental concern 2) Support is necessary as a fundamental concern 3) Love is support 4) Thus, Love is necessary as a fundamental concern 5) Thus, to love is a moral. The equivocation happens at (3). That is an identity claim without justification. Furthermore, if love is identical to support then there is no need to even posit (2) and (3) because (4) is saying the exact same thing as (2). And I must confess, I am having difficulty of making sense of your premises because of the wording. The clearest premise happens to be (3), and that's where your main problem is. You can actually state your argument as (1), (4) and (5), but I still wouldn't know what you are talking about. No ad hominem required.
A categorically delicious part of your noumenal breakfast.

Mako
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Location: In transit, somewhere in Nanjing

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 314

Posted 10/30/09 - 01:52 AM:	#115
James S Saint wrote: In other words, you have no idea of how to logically debate and thus choose to merely ad hom your opponent with derogatory claims. Such as making derogatory claims about someone's skill at logical debate? You actually accuse someone of an ad hominem attack while making an ad hominem attack yourself in the same sentence? You use vague terminology and a 'shifting-sands' style of argumentation, throwing mud all around, hoping some of it sticks. It seems you merely want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Here's a gem: "The "species" is actually subjective as well, but; Here's another one: The species is NOT the aim of the individual. It is merely a consequence and an assistance. What could those two obfuscating statements possibly mean? Or did you have any idea when you wrote them? Perhaps the pseudo forum would be more to you liking. Edited by Mako on 10/30/09 - 01:57 AM
"To alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:32 AM:	#116
Kant Chocula wrote: The equivocation happens at (3). That is an identity claim without justification. Furthermore, if love is identical to support then there is no need to even posit (2) and (3) because (4) is saying the exact same thing as (2). And I must confess, I am having difficulty of making sense of your premises because of the wording. The clearest premise happens to be (3), and that's where your main problem is. You can actually state your argument as (1), (4) and (5), but I still wouldn't know what you are talking about. (3) is a definition. If that definition is not acceptable, then it should be pointed out that such an assertion is not accepted. Then the issue can be discussed. It IS a required step so as to associate "support" with "love". The assertion is that they are actually the same concept. Thus the ENTIRE argument still stands until it is refuted that love does not mean support. But no such argument has been offered.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:37 AM:	#117
Mako wrote: Such as making derogatory claims about someone's skill at logical debate? You actually accuse someone of an ad hominem attack while making an ad hominem attack yourself in the same sentence? Hey, when someone repeatedly asks for exact instances of proclaimed error and yet gets NOTHING but accusations, derogatory, and belittling ad homs, the responder has asked for the same in return. He is just politicing.

Kant Chocula
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009
Location: North East Ohio

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 29

Posted 10/30/09 - 02:49 AM:	#118
James S Saint wrote: Kant Chocula wrote: The equivocation happens at (3). That is an identity claim without justification. Furthermore, if love is identical to support then there is no need to even posit (2) and (3) because (4) is saying the exact same thing as (2). And I must confess, I am having difficulty of making sense of your premises because of the wording. The clearest premise happens to be (3), and that's where your main problem is. You can actually state your argument as (1), (4) and (5), but I still wouldn't know what you are talking about. (3) is a definition. If that definition is not acceptable, then it should be pointed out that such an assertion is not accepted. Then the issue can be discussed. If (3) is merely a definition then you have a question begging argument. James S Saint wrote: It IS a required step so as to associate "support" with "love". The assertion is that they are actually the same concept. You are not associating the two terms. You are stating that "love is support." If you are not proposing that "is" represents "equal to" (to avoid equivocation) and are instead defining "love" in terms of "support" then you are building the concept of "fundamental concern" into to your concept of "love" in order to prove it in (4). That's pretty viciously circular. James S Saint wrote: Thus the ENTIRE argument still stands until it is refuted that love does not mean support. But no such argument has been offered. This is not the case. That your premise is not accepted puts no explanatory burden on your interlocutors. The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those making the assertion that I should accept the premise. Shifting the burden of proof is not good form. The only thing you can legitimately ask from me is an alternative account of what love is. Her is my account of love: love is the consciousness of physiological and psychological reactions due to the bio-chemical response to human pair-bonding. You do not have to refute my assertion. You simply have to demonstrate how your assertion has more explanatory power than my own.
A categorically delicious part of your noumenal breakfast.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/30/09 - 03:29 AM:	#119
Kant Chocula wrote: If (3) is merely a definition then you have a question begging argument. Then every premise ever stated in every argument is nothing but a "question begging argument." So lets do without premises. Hell we seem to be happy without definitions, why not get rid of every other logical rationale.

Kant Chocula
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009
Location: North East Ohio

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 29

Posted 10/30/09 - 03:37 AM:	#120
That's not the case. It begs the question because you are defining your concepts in terms of what you are attempting to prove. (3) begs the question because you are trying to prove (4) by building your conclusion into (3).
A categorically delicious part of your noumenal breakfast.

Page: First 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.