i also differ with your definition of "objective". i don't define objective as something outside the realm of human experience necessarily....
i never said you said that. it's human morality. it applies to humans. we can look at animals and see that they don't have the same morality(from...
i'm not exactly sure how what I said is "giving up" whatever that means. Maybe you can explain. We can't escape the human experience. This is...
that's pretty funny. i do think you try to remove yourself from being a human to evaluate things, which of course you can't do. everything is...
you don't think there are things that are true of us as humans but not true of a tree. maybe we need to define terms.
well, either you believe that it is never alright for someone to torture babies for fun or you don't believe that. If you believe that it is never...
but i don't understand why because it is unique in human beings why that would not allow it to be absolute, universal, and an objective reality....
i was just trying to make a point, trying to see if you would agree that it is absolutely never alright for someone to torture babies for fun.
why would they need to in order to be reality? if it is just part of who we are, which I think it is, then why would it need to apply to an animal...
i'm not sure i understand this question. I think the question that we have to ask is what evidence would we accept as absolute and final proof for...
but if logic is an unescapable reality for all human beings and the laws of logic universally apply, even if some deny that they do, then wouldn't...
i'm not trying to put words in your mouth. i guess what it comes down to is, logic is part of our identity as human beings. it's who we are. we...
So, if your next door neighbor was torturing babies for fun and he had no problem with it, would that be alright?
I believe this is a false dilemma. There are things that only human beings have which animals do not. Does the fact that the animals don't have...
All I'm saying is that you can't get away from it. We can't prove logical laws without presupposing the logic to prove them and we can't deny...
logic does exist though, you used it to write this post. it's fundamentally necessary to thinking. and that applies to everyone. I don't think...
well, what i'm saying is that beliefs have consequences. some beliefs are of little importance and consequence to us, some are a lot more...
everyone uses logic, even those who deny that they do. it's an inescapable concept. It's fundamentally necessary to thinking. Without it we have...
How can that be true? do you really believe that? have you ever thought about where this ultimately leads to?
doesn't this depend on what we accept as as final, conclusive proof? What our source of authority is.
Separate names with a comma.
