(August 18, 2017 at 3:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: It is not simply a matter of epistemological limits, like predicting outcomes and imagining intentions, or though choices, like the street car problem. In all of the above you are making moral evaluations without first supporting the framework within which you make them. Of course my examples were ridiculous! They were meant to demonstrate the importance of supplying warranted premises. You mention being logically consistent about how a generic human should be treated without reference to what it even means to be human or what it means to cause harm. You also keep mentioning empathy as if I had not already definitively shown that empathy is not a rational principle just because you prefer it so. Reasoning from an irrational premise cannot make the conclusion rational. That should be as obvious to you as the silly claim that something is true just because it's in the bible.
(August 18, 2017 at 3:12 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote: Nope. Not a human being. A parasite.
Next?
That opinion is contrary to basic biology. If you disagree you can take it up with science.
Nope. Wrong again. Next?
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
