Real World Philospohy

[Fyron]

Totally wrong there on all counts Jack. You are bringing unrelated issues into the morality systems that are not actually assumptions, but still have little to do with the morality itself.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).

Including those based on supposed divine directives. Since you can never get past the "supposed" part.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).

Including those based on supposed divine directives. Since you can never get past the "supposed" part.

---

Well, yes. I did use "Every". I thought that was clear.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Totally wrong there on all counts Jack. You are bringing unrelated issues into the morality systems that are not actually assumptions, but still have little to do with the morality itself.

A flat contradiction; interesting. Can you say why a single thing I listed as being an underlying assumption isn't an assumtpion (without replacing it with a different assumption (implicitly or explicitly), of course)?

Alternately, can you say why they are truly unrelated (again, without adding a different assumption somewhere)?

If not, why the flat-out contradiction? If so, please do.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by spoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).

Including those based on supposed divine directives. Since you can never get past the "supposed" part.

---

Well, yes. I did use "Every". I thought that was clear.

---

This line makes it seem like you are saying your particular belief system operates differently:

Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions

It appears to me that you are saying a belief in God means that your moral assumptions don't rely on a "feels-right" assumption.
But I am glad to hear that you don't actually believe that. Though it does, I suppose, beg the question as to why you brought it up to begin with.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
A flat contradiction; interesting. Can you say why a single thing I listed as being an underlying assumption isn't an assumtpion (without replacing it with a different assumption (implicitly or explicitly), of course)?

Alternately, can you say why they are truly unrelated (again, without adding a different assumption somewhere)?

If not, why the flat-out contradiction? If so, please do.

A flat contradiction for something that is just flat wrong. Going into minute details would be a waste of time.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
A flat contradiction for something that is just flat wrong. Going into minute details would be a waste of time.

Do you realize that you are essentially relying on your own authority in the matter, presuming that other people will just automatically assume your statements are correct? Do you have any idea how that makes you look to someone that recognizes the tactic?