Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral.

That isn't philosophy.You don't think, don't spread your disgusting disease around here please. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

is it more moral to kill two or one?is one action (doing nothing) or the other (killing one, the son), more or less moral than the other?that's the question.

No, but you are at least as repetitive. Edited by AdminPD, : WarningEdited by AdminPD, : BooBoo

Refer to my response to sidelined.

Refer to my reply to sidelined.(Neither is moral.)

Define philosophy. Or better yet tell your instructor that you get to define who is a philosopher instead of him from now on. Pot. Kettle. Black. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

prophexSo then what do you consider to be moral exactly?

if no neither choice is moral (doing nothing or killing the son),then why let two die when you can save a life?remind me to put my life in your hands.

A man that spent his life surrounded by books
was really interested in looks
was really interested in looks
I gave it my all, Dad
but I gave all I have
I don't have a fucked up face yet
this is where I turn my face I guess
you saw my profile
it's out there
it's on hereIt doesn't bother me. I'm not offended. I have nothing to say here and I never did. I won't be posting here anymore. I'm going to ease myself off of the internet. Jar I really respect you; I have nothing against anyone here. This isn't the place for me. I better submit this quick before it seems like I took my time on it. You'll see me. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Doing nothing is still not moral. Hang your son one dies do nothing two die. No matter what your action or non action will cause death it is up to you on how many.

---

six(sic)six

It's cute how you explain who Socrates is for the benefit of those who haven't heard of him. Anyway...How do you account for the morality of war, in which the killing of an enemy (as opposed to a compatriot) is considered "just"? If both sides consider their cause to be "just" who is truly right?If the idea that society determines what is moral is "pathetic", why do we see such behavior?

Why should they need an education? You mean they need to learn their morals? I thought you said

---

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur SchopenhauerHelp inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Firstly, are you referring to human life being crude and lowly, or moral dilemmas being crude and lowly?Regardless, you seem to be asserting here that humans do not have an inherent value. But then before you said: to value: judge the worth of somethingdignity: nobility or elevation of character; worthinessLooks to me like you have already placed a value on human life.

---

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur SchopenhauerHelp inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Prophex,If you feel the need to refer someone back to a previous post, please provide the link so they can read the correct post.Per the rules: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.I don't see that you are enlarging upon your argument. You seem to be treading water.If you have no more answers than what you have already written, then there is no need for this thread to remain open.If this pattern of referring posters to previous answers and repeating answers continues, I will close this thread.NOTE TO ALL PARTICIPANTS: Please argue the position and not the person.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

Great post, by the way! I'm impressed, Charlie....You always become fascinated with what you are learning in school and both you and your brother show this through your posts. I guess that my question to you is this: If society does not determine what is true, do you believe that truth is knowable? If so, what is the source of this truth...and...can it even be quantified as one particular absolute?