Worldwide Genocide Continues: 13,867 DEAD from COVID-19 Shots

[One Brow]

Do you believe that moral values are never a matter of opinion?

I think if the value is a matter of opinion, it is per force not a moral issue.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I think if the value is a matter of opinion, it is per force not a moral issue.

"Eating meat is wrong"

Is that an opinion or a moral value?

 

[One Brow]

"Eating meat is wrong"

Is that an opinion or a moral value?

It's a moral value. It may be correct or incorrect, but it's not an opinion. It's a conclusion based on premises that people may or may not accept.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

It's a moral value. It may be correct or incorrect, but it's not an opinion.

Given the dictionary definition of opinion you posted of an opinion being "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge", how so? Your definition of opinion perfectly describes this situation yet you say it isn't an opinion. Do you have a different definition of opinion that would preclude a view or judgement which this clearly is?

I'm also curious as to how you think it could be correct or incorrect. By what metric would you judge correctness or incorrectness?

 

[One Brow]

Given the dictionary definition of opinion you posted of an opinion being "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge", how so? Your definition of opinion perfectly describes this situation yet you say it isn't an opinion. Do you have a different definition of opinion that would preclude a view or judgement which this clearly is?

I'm also curious as to how you think it could be correct or incorrect. By what metric would you judge correctness or incorrectness?

Most adults who saying eating meat is moral, and most who say it is immoral, are basing their decisions on facts and knowledge.

You would judge by the metric of whether it is a conclusion to the correct set of of initial assumptions about the basic moral principles, contrary to them, or undetermined based on them but still with a moral value of it's own.

Let's go with something a little simpler and less likely to be controversial. Our commonly used mathematical system is based on a logical framework where every well-formed statement is either true or false. All of our commonly used are based upon adopting a set of 8 or so (depending on the construction) axioms/axiom schemas, which are chosen for seeming obviously true to us.

However, there will always mathematical statements that can't be proven true or false based on any non-contradictory axiom schema, and sometimes there will be statements that seem like they have to be true, and yet have consequences that are so absurd they seem obviously false. By the system we have set up, these statement have a real value of true or false, but we have no way of determining what that value is.

Given that this is true in something as simple as mathematics, I'm quite comfortable with the notion that in a more complex field like ethics, while every action that has a impact on others that they notice has a moral value, we may not be able to determine what they are. Our inability to authoritatively assign a value does not make every possible assignment equally valid.

 

[Avery]

This exchange by Al and OB is hands down the weirdest flirting I’ve seen in this forum.

 

[carey-scurry fan]

The VAERS database you just linked to is funded by taxes on the pharmacological companies and run the government you claim is keeping things secret.

You have nothing but slander and disinformation, stacked up by trying to prey on people's ignorance. We're all onto the game here. You haven't uncovered some secret cabal, you're not part of the chosen. you've been manipulated into feeling an exaggerated sense of importance.

Go do something that really matters. Give money to a homeless person, tell someone you love them, teach a child something new. You can really be important doing these things. Spreading the lies of the quacks and charlatans of the world only diminishes you.

No what you should do is gtfo my thread you were not invited here and thread is not titled attn one brow. You need to do something that matters like getting 20 karl malone flying elbows to the eye like isiah thomas or 20 porkchop elbows to the throat that stockton delivered. now thats a real crack-cine. u and al-o-meter need to start your own thread

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You would judge by the metric of whether it is a conclusion to the correct set of of initial assumptions about the basic moral principles, contrary to them, or undetermined based on them but still with a moral value of it's own.

I’m throwing in the towel on this one. There is a school of thought called moral realism that believes some moral judgements fall into the category of moral facts based on the idea that to inflict suffering is wrong. That is not a point of view that I subscribe to and believe it inevitably leads to pathologizing ideas (such as claiming speech is violence) and ultimately to zealotry.

The framework you’ve presented here isn’t traditional moral realism but is instead one in which morals, even contradicting morals, can be proved true based on the due diligence in forming the non-opinion moral value. If that works for you then it is what it is but it isn’t a framework that I can make workable. I’ll stick with the more traditional definitions of facts and opinions, and that moral values are a matter of opinion.

 

[One Brow]

No what you should do is gtfo my thread you were not invited here and thread is not titled attn one brow.

No, the thread is titled with a lie, and responding to lies is one of the pleasures in my life.

If you don't want me in your thread, appeal to Jason. If you just don't want to read my posts, put me on ignore. I'm not going to let you spread lies without challenge in here.

You need to do something that matters like getting 20 karl malone flying elbows to the eye like isiah thomas or 20 porkchop elbows to the throat that stockton delivered. now thats a real crack-cine.

Your hate is like ice cream for dessert.

 

[Avery]

No what you should do is gtfo my thread you were not invited here and thread is not titled attn one brow. You need to do something that matters like getting 20 karl malone flying elbows to the eye like isiah thomas or 20 porkchop elbows to the throat that stockton delivered. now thats a real crack-cine. u and al-o-meter need to start your own thread

Doing the math, that’s 800 stitches total for Thomas so that’d be satisfactory.

 

[One Brow]

There is a school of thought called moral realism that believes some moral judgements fall into the category of moral facts based on the idea that to inflict suffering is wrong.

That's one version of moral realism, but 'avoiding suffering' and realism are on separate axes of moral categorization. In fact, a moral-realistic version of utilitarianism might require you to inflict suffering directly.

That is not a point of view that I subscribe to and believe it inevitably leads to pathologizing ideas (such as claiming speech is violence) and ultimately to zealotry.

It's quite simple to create a realist framework where free speech is an absolute, or one where zealotry is an evil.

The framework you’ve presented here isn’t traditional moral realism but is instead one in which morals, even contradicting morals, can be proved true based on the due diligence in forming the non-opinion moral value. If that works for you then it is what it is but it isn’t a framework that I can make workable.

It takes a certain king of youthful arrogance to take the bare-bones description I've offered so far and presume I think there is something as concrete as provably true morals.

I’ll stick with the more traditional definitions of facts and opinions,

Sure, you stick with the level of complexity you can understand, and I'll stick the more nuanced and correct notions I have developed, since we're being passive-aggressive about it.

and that moral values are a matter of opinion.

So, there is no objective reason to think murdering a child because their crying irritates you is wrong? It's just our opinion?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

So, there is no objective reason to think murdering a child because their crying irritates you is wrong? It's just our opinion?

That is what I believe. I think murdering a child is morally horrific because our morals are subject to both behavioral norms and biological drives, both of which reinforce that moral value. If it were objectively wrong then animals wouldn’t have developed strategies to protect their young because there wouldn’t be a need. If you think it is somehow more morally wrong for a human to do that to another human as compared to an ant colony finding some larva to snack on then it isn’t objective. It is subjective and as such it is a widely held and fiercely defended opinion.