Uh, I was stating that there are other methods for dealing with conflict between values other than confrontation, is that not true? Also It's not a "last word" as I wasn't anticipating the end of the topic.
Here's the proof:
1. All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects.
2. Desires are the only objects of evaluation that exist regarding value.
3. That which is good for an individual is that which fulfils the most/strongest desires from their competing sets of desires.
4. Morality is a subset of value dealing with shared values (good for us).
5. The values in question when it comes to making moral evaluation are all other desires (competing values)
6. Therefore, that which is morally good (good for us) is a desire that tends to fulfil the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires.
If you spot any flaws feel free to point them out.
Here's the proof:
1. All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects.
2. Desires are the only objects of evaluation that exist regarding value.
3. That which is good for an individual is that which fulfils the most/strongest desires from their competing sets of desires.
4. Morality is a subset of value dealing with shared values (good for us).
5. The values in question when it comes to making moral evaluation are all other desires (competing values)
6. Therefore, that which is morally good (good for us) is a desire that tends to fulfil the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires.
If you spot any flaws feel free to point them out.
.
