Actual Fun

"This is uncalled for. The above is not a logical argument, but an emotional one, with which you try to have an emotional appeal. This is a cheap card to play." It isn't exactly an emotional card. It's a demonstration of the absurdities which result if morality is an illusion. I am pointing out that things that are called wrong by almost every human in the world wouldn't be considered wrong. "This is true. As humans, it would be best to pretend that morality exists. Heck, I do. Unfortunately for your case though, asserting that it is vital to HUMAN society and the HUMAN race, does not come to the conclusion that morality is more than an illusion. Something being necessary to a society does not mean it is not an illusion. You are diverging from the topic." I disagree. It's not an illusion, it may come from less lofty sources, but it isn't an illusion. Take Nietzche's example in Human all too Human, the tribal big men created morality. It isn't from God or anything, but it isn't an illusion. "In fact, my opponent only providing examples pertaining to humans, only goes to prove my point that morality is merely the product of the human mind. My opponent has only furthered the point that morality is an illusion." Not really. Morality can only apply to beings that can know the difference between right and wrong. Insects can't, people can. Therefore, people are the only real users of morality known to man. "This is an interesting assertion, but one with no accompanying evidence, and must therefore be disregarded. I am un-familiar with the people mentioned, and I am not inclined to look them up, because I need not to do my opponents research." Kant 1. Moral rules cannot be hypothetical, because that impinges on moral autonomy, and the will of a rational being. 2. Therefore they must be categorical. 3. Consequences cannot determine morality, as they are not necessarily the product of a rational being. 4. Therefore inclinations determine morality. 5. Rules that lead to contradictions cannot exist. 6. Moral rules cannot lead to contradictions. 7. Therefore, we must use this principle: "Act in such a manner that thy maxim can be made a universal law of nature" in order to prevent contradictions. Pure logic. Mill 1. Happiness is the only desirable thing (It's the only thing that can be desired, at least as a final end) 2. Therefore, morality must seek to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness. Pure logic. "But what makes his moral system wrong and yours right? Who gets to decide? Humans do…and it is therefore an illusion. Since you have chosen to ignore my point, and instead complain about the moral rules I chose (they were merely examples), I will use examples of moral beliefs from YOUR profile…' His is irrational. Mine has at least some basis in logic, I would hope. "On your profile, you are against both abortion and police profiling. What possible connection is there between these two things?" My litmus test is this "If an action infringes on rights if it is made a universal law of nature for this situation more than it increases rights, it is immoral" Abortion deprives future humans of their right to life, and police profiling deprives citizens with an ethnic background of their rights to fairness. The connection is that they both infringe on rights. "Yes, it does mean that. They refer to pieces of information, which can only be stored in brains (including electric brains…I'm using the term loosely), and is therefore an illusion. There is no such thing as incorrect, if there is no thing to imagine something that is incorrect, in the physical world nothing is incorrect, because that refers to information, and there is no information, only results. Truth and false are merely descriptors to hypothetical, not actual, events.'Yes, it does mean that. They refer to pieces of information, which can only be stored in brains (including electric brains…I'm using the term loosely), and is therefore an illusion. There is no such thing as incorrect, if there is no thing to imagine something that is incorrect, in the physical world nothing is incorrect, because that refers to information, and there is no information, only results. Truth and false are merely descriptors to hypothetical, not actual, events." I think you are misunderstanding me. If I say "Is it true that you go on to debate.org?" You would say it is not true, because there is no true or false. I can imagine you not going on debate.org, but you do go on nonetheless. "What I was describing was morality. You imply that true morality is the result of logic, yet do not provide even the slightest hint to what this logic is. I am inclined to believe that you might not actually have a grasp of your alleged logic which you swear exists." I provided logic. "My opponent has now made the endlessly confusing assertion that people who are 'too ignorant' to think about ethics, have the false illusion that morality does exist. Would you please elaborate on how people who don't think about ethics have the illusion it exists?" Sorry for the confusion. Okay, the average Bible-thumper says, "God hates gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research" so he doesn't support gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research. That's not logic, that's stupidity. "Even if you believe there is very little, there are some reasons to agree with science, and what not. My point was that a debate based on blind faith is utterly without logic." Morality is based on logic, science is based on logic and empiricism, math is based on logic. "I have not. The above is not an argument, but a reference to someone else who DOES have an argument. This does not serve as evidence to his case." Well, still read it, but I provided the logic above. Sorry for not actually showing it, but I really didn't feel like it at the time.