Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hans · 04-08-2002, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:


But 'acertained to be contrary to one's views' defines 'wrong', so the hypothetical can be shown to be wrong.

Only if one views the action as wrong. One can simply see no need and have no desire to perform such acts.

Lycius · 04-08-2002, 12:08 PM

Quote:

"Wrong as in immoral. As in it shouldn't be done. As in if someone performed such an act they (if not would) at least should feel guilty about it. Why is it wrong to do those acts to another? What is the basis for the conclusion that it is wrong?"

If I may interject (I'm new here), I would posit one item as to what could make it "wrong," and that is: If you would be opposed to these actions being done to you.

Would that work as a possible reason?

MadMordigan · 04-08-2002, 12:13 PM

Only if one views the action as wrong. One can simply see no need and have no desire to perform such acts.

Functionally equivalent.

Hans · 04-08-2002, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MadMordigan:
Only if one views the action as wrong. One can simply see no need and have no desire to perform such acts.

Functionally equivalent.

So true!

DRFseven · 04-08-2002, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Hans: Only if one views the action as wrong.

Obviously, I don't know what you're saying. It seem to me you are defining 'wrong' as 'that which is wrong.'

I am saying that for you to say the hypothetical cannot be defined as wrong, you are thinking of 'wrong' as something else besides 'that which we ascertain to be contrary to our views.' What is the 'something else?'

Quote:

One can simply see no need and have no desire to perform such acts.

I think you are saying, here, that if one does such a thing, one is not avoiding wrongdoing. But I don't know why you said it!

Hans · 04-08-2002, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:
I am saying that for you to say the hypothetical cannot be defined as wrong, you are thinking of 'wrong' as something else besides 'that which we ascertain to be contrary to our views.' What is the 'something else?'

If someone does not have a view that the actions should not be done, then doing the actions are not contrary to his views, therefore not wrong per the definition you offered.

{Edit: I offered "One can simply see no need and have no desire to perform such acts" out of context. It does not apply. I must have been responding to my own thoughts instead of what you wrote. Slight sidetrack!}

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Hans ]

DRFseven · 04-08-2002, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Hans: Because outside of ones own subjective viewpoint, that may or may not exist, it seems it can not be shown that it is immoral.

But that's what immoral is; something that seems wrong in one's subjective viewpoint. You seem to be saying you disagree, but you don't say what your definition is.

Hans · 04-08-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:
But that's what immoral is; something that seems wrong in one's subjective viewpoint. You seem to be saying you disagree, but you don't say what your definition is.

Then you have successfully argued that if one has the view that the action should not be done then for that person to to so would be contrary to his views. Which is the subjective view. You win!! The actions can be shown to be wrong on a person by person basis subject to that person having the view the actions should not be done.

DRFseven · 04-08-2002, 02:11 PM

Maybe this explains it better. What are the meanings of flavorful and nonflavorful? Tastes that seem full or devoid of flavor to the tastee! There is no other meaning.

DRFseven · 04-08-2002, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Hans: Then you have successfully argued that if one has the view that the action should not be done then for that person to to so would be contrary to his views. Which is the subjective view. You win!! The actions can be shown to be wrong on a person by person basis subject to that person having the view the actions should not be done.

Well, who has ever argued against that? I thought you were saying that the subjective view of morality was not valid.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2002, 12:13 PM	#63
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	Only if one views the action as wrong. One can simply see no need and have no desire to perform such acts. Functionally equivalent.

04-08-2002, 02:11 PM	#69
DRFseven Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,322	Maybe this explains it better. What are the meanings of flavorful and nonflavorful? Tastes that seem full or devoid of flavor to the tastee! There is no other meaning.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.