Veganism

[Thumpalumpacus]

If it's fallacious on either side then saying that there is no objective morality because of disagreement is just as problematic as saying that there is objective morality because of agreement.

Which is probably why I wrote "on either side", as the attentive reader will have noticed. You can come out of lecture mode, there's a good lad.

***********************************

I had nothing to do with this following exchange at all, but after quoting me first with attribution, you've quoted someone else without attribution, thus courting the possibility that I might be held responsible for someone else's views. Might you please pay a little more attention to detail, out of consideration for others?

---

No, I didn't. I'm denying its existence. I said that a long time back when I first said that there was no evidence for 'moral facts'.

Do I have to quote you saying that agreement is just what's fashionable?

If it's so obvious, then I'm certain that you'll have no difficulty providing evidence rather than yet more argument. Kindly try to correct for the fact that the overwhelming majority of moral systems were imposed at gunpoint by a relatively small portion of Western Europe. The only thing that's obvious to me is that we don't follow our own relatively flexible moral precepts.

It's obvious that there is moral agreement because sometimes people agree on morals. Like I said: most people agree that rape is wrong. The question is WHY do you discount that?

With regards to the point about begging the question: When I ask you why you think that there is no moral agreement you effectively just say because there is no moral agreement. That is begging the question. You don't give an independent argument. I keep asking WHY you think that there is no agreement, and you aren't giving a substantive answer.
[/quote]

---