Quote:Uh, I was stating that there are other methods for dealing with conflict between values other than confrontation, is that not true?
I think that's debatable depending on one's semantic and practical understanding of confrontation. I would still like an explanation of how your statements relate to my quote.
Quote: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.
I don't understand your argument. I'm unconvinced that moral propositions are true or false depending on objective features of the universe. Perhaps you would have better success if you presented an example of a moral proposition, and then proved it true or false using some objective features of the universe.
