tell me more
\
So they merely have the luck of establishing rights?
I, Ryan does not announce his belief system yet somehow I strawman him. Interesting concept is it not?
moral nihilism, is the denial of objective morality. or tell me, what moral nihilism the denial of? what is being ‘nihiled’?
i’m not allowed to notice things,
that too could be a strawman
I think that is a self-implied strawman, stop strawmanning yourself.
at least strawmanning is not immoral . small comfort.
Well if you define it that way, that’s fine. I don’t claim to be an expert on the different philosophical labels but I think it is more ambiguous. But couldn’t you be moral even if you can’t deduce it logically?
ARE YOU SUREEEE??? [;)]
I notice something else, too: an amazing level of indulgence such arguments. I try to just ignore anyone who persistently strawmans, misreads, conflates, or otherwise chronically fails to show reasonable understanding of logic. It’s tempting to reply when you can easily prove such people wrong, but since they won’t understand (or care?) that they are wrong they will just continue sniping senselessly about and bloating the thread. Just my opinion.
Violence, and coercion are also quite natural.
sure, you could so happen to act in ways compatible with not violating peoples rights, thats being ‘accidentally’ moral. i.e. your moral, and one of the things someone could say aobut your being a moral person was that you werent that way from principle but by accident.
Really? Explain how you have come to this idea.
I for one merely ask people who use terms like “objective morality” to define them unambiguously. I can’t deny something until I’ve seen a precise, unambiguous statement of what that something is supposed to be defined as.
The problem is you think nearly everything that is said about natural rights is ambiguous.
morality that is true for everyone, (whether they believe it or not) like the laws of science are true for everyone.(w t b i o n) (thats an illustrative analogy, not a proof )
As far as I have seen, it is. If anyone has anything say using unambiguous terms, I am all ears.
So far, I’ve spent several days trying to get a precise statement on natural law or natural rights from a poster, a scholar - anyone. If anyone purported to have a logically precise argument but could not produce even a single rigorous definition, how long would you humor that person?
Hey, if you don’t like my arguments then go to the source. Roderick Long is a philospher who I agree with concerning natural law. Go to the source. I hope you find your answer.
I agree with AJ. Please define ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. I found about ten or so different definitions for those terms.
Thank you. I see how a statement can be true or false, but I don’t see how morality can be “true” or “false.” Please provide an unambiguous definition of “morality” that makes it clear how morality can be “true” or “false.”
Note: If you’d like to use “ought” and then say “ought” cannot be defined and is “atomic,” please fully articulate your reasoning on that.