RE: Deconversion and some doubts
July 30, 2019 at 10:10 pm
(This post was last modified: July 30, 2019 at 10:14 pm by Acrobat.)
(July 30, 2019 at 9:51 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Again, you’re working with a silent evaluative premise, which is whats required to go from is to ought. The is doesn’t imply anything on its own.
That’s the is ought dilemma.
As to your last question...nothing, in a harm based moral structure with a single metric.
They’re equivalent statements.
My turn, what does any of this have to do with a god?
If it’s equivalent, but only applicable to harm based moral structures, it’s silly to replace “ it causes harm to others” with “immoral”.
Saying that stealing causes harm to others, can be acknowledged by those who do and don’t subscribe to a harm based moral structure. It’s better communicates what it is your trying to say here, than replacing it with immoral, which adds no additional information, but only obscures it.
Quote: My turn, what does any of this have to do with a god?
It has nothing to do with anything you have in mind when it comes to the concept of God.
