Not precisely. Think a little more narrowly; what does the NAP concern itself with.
No, that’s not a problem at all. Why? Because I know the differences between morality, aesthetics, and decorum/etiquette.
Yes, I most certainly will. It’s high time people learned the differences between morality, aesthetics, and decorum/etiquette.
So do I.
And what makes your opinion more right than mine again?
That you say this:
Means that you do not understand the differences. You believe it’s mere opinion–as if it’s no different from preferring chocolate to vanilla. That, btw, is aesthetics.
You too believe its mere opinion. You are of the opinion that anything not prohibited by the NAP is moral. You believe in X (the NAP) but not in A, B, C, etc.
Just because you reject all opinions of morality outside the NAP, as opposed to just some of them, as I do, does not mean your opinion is any less based on, well, opinion.
Your opinion just happens to be mostly based on rejections of morality; making you no less opinion based than me.
Also, the chocolate and vanilla thing really suggests you don’t understand my argument.I have repeatedly stated that the NAP is objectively valid. We’re not dealing with that.
No.
And the chocolate/vanilla thing shows that I DO understand your argument, since it seems that you believe that actions which have nothing to do with rights-violations can be classified as immoral. Those fall into aesthetics and decorum/etiquette, not morality.
maybe seph will answer how some matters are decorum/ettiquette and-or aesthetics , but also morality too! and yet, other matters are decorum/ettiquette or aesthetics and not morality…
what goes on for you Seph?
When you ask me to do that, you’re just asking for me to recite my personal beliefs on morality which is not the issue here.
How many times do I have to state that it is up to the individual to choose for him or herself?
Yes.
See how annoying that is?
No, it’s not. You need to learn that your soybean sentences will simply be dismissed. If that’s annoying to you: stop writing soybean sentences aka filler material which provides no substance.
Because you could provide categories, as your personal beliefs ARE at issue here, since you have a problem discerning between categories of actions which are mora/immoral and those which simply “break” some aesthetic or decorum concept.
Let me provide you some ideas for thought: there are many idiots who think that being gay, or being a nonbeliever in whatever religion they are, or not helping every poor person, or being of a different color classifies as “immoral”. The fact is that the 1st 3 are aesthetic, and the last one is both aesthetic and blind stupidity. Do you understand now?
I have always understood your opinion on the differences between morality and aesthetics.
Except it’s fact. And now you’ll try the childish comeback of “it’s a fact that it’s your opinion”. Don’t bother me with such nonsense.
Believe it or not, simply saying something is a fact doesn’t make it so.
Nor does “that’s just your opinion” simply make it opinion. Sucks to be you, doesn’t it?
Now when you grasp that words do actually have meanings–especially in philosophy–you’ll end this nonsense of yours.
What a nice way to evade proving anything.
And yes, when you oversimplify someone else’s argument, it can often appear ridiculous. Who knew?
You guys have fallen into the trap of talking past each other. Perhaps start over, and work from a premise you can both agree upon.
Oh, I see. You don’t like it when the truth is pointed out to you.
Good thing I’m not doing that, then.
No, I know exactly what he’s talking about. I’ve been explaining to him what’s going on. He’s just refusing to read. So much fun.
lol.
I take it you haven’t been reading, either. Pity.