re after years can we say that christian morality is in article r inr lvi horus ap mchp sni de frank d s uucp frank o dwyer writes deletion and if a real large lot nice phrase of people agree that there is a football on a desk i m supposed to see a logical difference between the two perhaps you can explain the difference to me since you seem to see it so clearly rest deleted that s a fallacy and it is not the first time it is pointed out it s not a fallacy note the if if a supermajority of disinterested people agree on a fundamantal value we re not doing ethics yet benedikt then what is the difference between that and those people agreeing on a trivial observation the reference to it s not yet being ethics is dubious you have used the terms absolute objective and others interchangeably same with moral values values at all worth measuers and usefulness you infer from them as if they were the same to the if when the if is not fulfilled your intermission is a waste of time assuming that you don t intend this it is reasonable to conclude that you want to argue a point you have made a interesting statement here namely that of the disinterested observer there is no such thing in morals probably the shortest proof for objective and morality being a contradiction for one you have never given a set of morals people agree upon unlike a football further you conveniently ignore here that there are many who would not agree on tghe morality of something the analogy does not hold i have however given an example of a value people agree on and explained why people will agree that their freedom is valuable i have also stated that such a value is a necessary condition for doing objective ethics the if assertion above and that is what i m talking about there isn t a point in talking about ethics if this can t be agreed fine and that freedom is valuable is not generally agreed upon i could name quite a lot of people who state the opposite not that that wasn t mentioned before in other words you have nothing to fulfill your strong claims with one can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football while you have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees with a set of morals you have to give i m not doing morals ethics if we can t get past values as i say the only cogent objection to my freedom example is that maybe people aren t talking about the same thing when they answer that it is valuable maybe not and i want to think about this some especially the implications of its being true clutching a straw i don t believe in mappings into metaphysical sets were loaded terms are fixpoints those who deny the morality of freedom make quite clear what they say their practice is telling yes there are even those who are willingly unfree it is quite common in religions by the way for one there is a religion which is named submission don t even try to argue that submission is freedom further the above is evidence not proof proof would evolve out of testing your theory of absolute morals against competing theories garbage that s not proof either if it were so it would argue my case but i am afraid that that is considered proof the above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer the objections evidence that you are a preacher name that fallacy there is something universally valued in a moral context benedikt
