Perhaps I should ask what makes a humans life more valuable in the sense of necessity causing their worth to be greater than that of an animals?
For clarification: I am simply asking your point of view as to why you may think an animals life has a lesser worth than that of a humans.
The problem with your statement is your implicit assumption that the only entities that should have rights to life are those that are cognizant of the needs/preferences of others. This not only invokes a moral rationale, but also begs the question.
I would prefer you give a sound argument (inductive or otherwise) as to why an animals right to life should be not equivalent to that of a humans.
Given your statement I feel as though this will come to a moral argument - ha, and I'm sure we both do not wish to be encumbered with such a debacle.
You misquoted me. I did not say "the other three". I said "one of the 3", "one of the other of the 3", and "the third option". This one is all on you.
You just flat out lied.... I copied and pasted exactly what you wrote. If you edited your comment then that shows your dishonesty. I am entirely disappointed in you Cartman.
This act of dishonesty was enough for me to dismiss this bickering entirely as it shows your immaturity and your likelihood of trolling me right now. I wish you the best.
What does intelligence have to do with living rights?
Furthermore, you cannot compare intelligence of a chicken to that of a human as they are two entirely different intelligence complexes. What, they aren't intelligent because they cannot do calculus? Chimps share 98% of our DNA and yet, cannot do half of the things we can. The reason why is because although they are our cousins, they are still a different subspecies of apes. Therefore they function in a way different from us to best suit their environment.
False. I am using the one that is correct for this debate. According to your definition the debate premise is false and there is no debate. According to my definition the debate premise has a chance to be true and is open for debate. Therefore, you are using the wrong definition.
Homosexuality is natural, for it is produced by nature.... Humans are produced by nature, therefore anything that humans do is natural.
We are trying to determine if religion exists in nature, not if it is a natural thing for humans to do. In the context of this debate religion is unnatural like the debate creator suggests homosexuality is. Religion is not in nature because not all species have religion ... the premise of the debate.
First, a scientific claim is not always validated by the observation of another species.
Secondly, all we need is one species to practice religion for it to exist in nature as humans are natural.
Thirdly, the way the debate is contextualized in using naturalness does not coincide with its attempted meaning of natural which is why it is completely wrong. The debate is expressing nature as in something that occurs without conscious decision and I believe you are to; my point is the fact that this is conceptualized and practiced entails that it must be natural, even if one person was doing it, for logical reasons. Moreover, I could go even further how religion is conjured up no matter where you go in the world which hints towards a psycho-genetic component that may give rise to a system in which explains things we don't know.
Oh, and how come I am not justified in using my definition of natural if it is in the dictionary as well. You are being contradictory.
I never said you weren't justified in using your definition, you are the one who said I wasn't justified in using one of the definitions, you basically said my definition of natural doesn't work. I used a universal definition of natural- anything that is caused by nature; humans are cause by nature; therefore, anything that a human does is natural.
Don't speak for logicians. They would say you are wrong.
Even though my use of natural is logically sound...
Tell me, where am i wrong in saying: humans are produced by nature; therefore humans are natural; therefore anything that this natural entity (humans) does is natural; humans explain thing; therefore the act of explanation is natural.
I am glad that you have proven you are too dumb to be allowed in this debate. There are 3 choices. I told you that humans are not doing one of the 3, they are doing one of the other of the 3, and you claim my logic dictates that they are doing the third option. Clearly you have misrepresented what I have said.
Ah, i see you are incompetent in understanding how nuanced grammatical logic and lexical semantics are. You gave three options two of which can be interchangeable (supernatural and unnatural).
Secondly, this statement itself is logically unsound: "There are 3 choices. I told you that humans are not doing one of the 3, they are doing one of the other of the 3, and you claim my logic dictates that they are doing the third option." By this logic there are six choices, as you said "the other three". Lmao, you are actually misrepresenting yourself.
Not natural might be considered unnatural if you weren't an idiot and looked at the definition I told you about.
The word unnatural is self-described as not natural, obviously. My point is you cannot deduce that something natural can give rise to unnatural, unless, of course, we are talking about a fantasy realm.
Wow, I just showed there is no logic in it whatsoever, and that it was completely refutable. Congratulations.
You have not shown anything but complete ignorance in the field of logic.
That isn't a thing. You are using an alternate definition of unnatural that doesn't fit with this debate.
You only asked me to provide a context in which i would use the word unnatural. That is all i did; and my example was logically sound.
Perhaps I will make a debate about humans doing the 'unnatural'.
If someone says"Einstein thinks jeans are stupid so they must be" that is an appeal to authority. If someone says "Einstein agrees with my position concerning the nature of light", that would not be an appeal to authority.
You've created an entirely different fallacy, using a grossly different comparison to make his point seem better. Eisenstein's agreement of light (an objective element that can be scientifically tested) vs. a philosophers agreement on a subjective notion (morality, which requires human postulations) are entirely two different agreements. For him to note morality as being objective given a renowned philosophers 'says-so' is in fact appeal to authority, erroneous as it may be.
Natural- in conformity with the ordinary course of nature (usual).
Here is a context in which i would use unnatural- being inextricably interchangeable with unusual:
If my girlfriend wakes up at 5 whereas normally she would wake up at 8, i would say that is unnatural (basically interchange the word with unusual).
Changing the definition of natural does not make you logical.
There are 33 definitions of natural, you only choose to go by one, which makes you an incorrigible irrational nonconformist.
Your definition of unnatural is useless, that's why no one uses it.
I don't care who chooses not to use the dictionaries definition of natural, for as long as I am using a dictionaries definition of natural then I am justified in using it, simple.
No one but you considers what humans create to be natural.
Logicians do, know why? because the logical progression of naturalism entails that anything that a human does must be considered natural.
There is natural, unnatural, and supernatural. You eliminated one of those. Why?
By your context of unnaturalness humans must be doing something supernatural; how can a natural being give rise to actions unnatural? Unless of course that very being itself wasn't natural (i.e. supernatural). Now i don't mind going into the realm of super-naturalism, but the subject you are attempting to refute is logically sound and irrefutable.
Name the context for unnatural or STFU. Give me anything unnatural or STFU.
Very mature debating skills, Cartman. But as you insist, here is a context in which i would use unnatural- being inextricably interchangeable with unusual:
If my girlfriend wakes up at 5 whereas normally she would wake up at 8, i would say that is unnatural (basically interchange the word with unusual).
You're are completely incapable of interpreting logic coherently.
I believe i have waited my time talking to a brick wall. I call you a brick wall for making comments such as "And, according to your definition, religion is unnatural since it is only seen by one species." And, "Give me one thing that is unnatural. Do it."
Anything that exists inside and produced by the like of nature is NATURAL, the only example of something unnatural that I can give you something that is fantastical. Tis why i suggested that one must use unnaturalness in a certain context.
It is illogical nonetheless to say that natural phenomenon produces unnaturalness in the most technical sense.
Buildings are unnatural.
Buildings are indeed a natural phenomenon as they are produced by natural entities such as chimps, bees, etc. (NOTE: You're also wrong when you say humans are the only creatures that makes buildings. Moreover, natural elements themselves forms structures that fit within the criterion of a building.
Building- a structure with a roof and walls that is used as a place for living, working, doing activities, storing things, etc.)
Clothes are unnatural.
Clothing - a covering.
I will try to be charitable by assuming you have no fundamental understanding of zoology: there is a creature called a snail, some of the specimens within this species wears the shell (or 'covers' itself) of another species - this also fits inside the criterion of "clothing".
THE DEFINITION OF UNNATURAL.
Unnatural is a bit ambiguous. So I'll follow this question up with:
What is your definition of unnatural?
Natural - having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature.
(NOTE: there was exactly 15 definitions of natural which shows how nuanced the term is.)
Unnatural - Not in accordance with what usually occurs in nature.
Again, humans are apart of nature, given so it is inevitable that anything that is produced by humans is natural, technically.
Now if you wish to explicate naturalness by invoking what is common, then you have every right to do so as i previously stated the term natural is ambiguous.
The only way your point could be valid in any way is if somehow take humans out of the equation as being natural phenomenon produced in a natural way- which, the only way to do that is to invoke religion into this topic which, for the sake of cumbersome argument, i would rather refrain from doing.
Dictionary says you are wrong, therefore no matter what logic you use the definition of unnatural doesn't change.
I would suggest that you concoct a studying plan so you can become more proliferate in the subject of logic that way you can properly engage in semantic/terminological discourse.
Wow this is absolutely absurd and wrong.
Our explanations are derived from the fact that we THINK we understand certain phenomenon. We had an explanation for the earth being in the center of the universe, for example.
Explaining things is apart of what humans do; humans are natural; therefore the act of human explanation is, in fact, natural.
It's actually not really. Conventional religions may be irrational but its perfectly natural for humans to try and describe things they can't or don't understand. They just insert entities into their descriptions which helps with the soundness of the rationale explanation. Actually, a lot religions do give rational explanations (e.g. demon possession being translated from psychological explanations, the devil, if real as conceived, and transferred into a living entity, would likely give rise to hysteric behavior- unless its objective were to remain inconspicuous).
Does typing require abnormal neurological/psychological make-up since it is not what you were designed for?
Straw man; humans were designed to be able to communicate in creative ways, typing is a form of communication therefore one can argue that [typing] is just a form of advanced communication.
Homosexual behavior has been show to have advanatages for animal species and humans.
The evidence for this isn't very substantial. This is really just a mere postulation.
"biologically normal" - pretty sure no one is claiming that it literally happens in more than 50% of the population
I never stated that it did. This actually makes no sense.
Who determines what "should be" - you? evolution?
There is a certain criterion which must be met for something to be considered normal. What determines this criterion is the evidence of how things work and function. When one is born with one eye we can conclude that something must have went wrong during the embryos development process. How can we deduce this? Well, the human anatomy is designed to function best with two eyes as apposed to one- and having two eyes is advantageous for ones survival.
One would think evolution but homosexuality continues to persist which is why it is sometimes postulated to be advantageous, problem is plenty of prevalent disadvantageous dysfunctions/psychological abnormalities persist despite not being advantageous.
So to answer your question of who (or rather what) determines what "should be": rationality and empirical evidence.
I never stated homosexuality was a disorder, it's not a disorder given that it doesn't fit the criterion of one, obviously. I stated it was an abnormal neurological/psychological make-up given that it gives rise to behaviors that are not what your anatomy is technically designed for- and from an evolutionary standpoint it hasn't been shown yet to be advantageous to a species (unless we're speaking of some sort of hermaphroditic species), so I wouldn't call it necessarily predisposed. Just as in the case of blindness, plenty of people are born blind but does that make it something that biologically normal (note: when i speak of normality i am speaking in terms of what should be, not something of which is common)?
Well it wouldn't be an ignorant notion given that psychology authorities have not yet ruled it out. I'm sure homosexuality may have genetic components that would give rise to this abnormal trait but to imply that my neurological notion is 100% untrue isn't scientific at all (and even more so since it hasn't been ruled out as a possibility).
Furthermore, attraction (whether it's to a sex or a painting), is a psychological function by necessity. Notwithstanding, to say homosexuality doesn't correspond with ones psyche is a tad bit absurd.
Logical fallacy: 'appeal to authority'.
Furthermore, you should think about this statement; plenty of profoundly intelligent individuals hypothesized illogical matters in attempt to describe things - Plato believed that we knew everything in a world before we were born, and when we finally are born we forget and as we grow we learn what we had forgotten in the past.
Most importantly this statement is a logical fallacy.
All you do is point out nonexistent facets of morality and claim that there is possibly some objectivity.
Your arguments for objective morality continues to point to subjectivity as others seem to constantly remind you. Essentially you unwittingly don't argue for objective morality, you just use sophistry as a tool to invalidate arguments supporting subjective morality.
I believe you know you can't make a valid argument for objective morality which is why you succumb to survival as if that somehow promotes objectivity- which is another argument entirely.
You argument wasn't even deductive, or perhaps was just invalid and unsound.
You do give a good inductive argument for obj morality but do know that that is all it is, inductive. But a very weak one nonetheless.
Morality is by the very definition and nature subjective (unless you're religious). Now Let's move on, if you choose to hold an erroneous notion and ideology then so be it (some people still believe the earth is flat).
There are things that humans actually must do in order to live. Some conduct allows humans to live better than other conduct. This is true regardless of opinion rendering this aspect of morality objective.
This begs the question of what conduct is better for whom... This is an unsolvable question which now renders the argument pointless.
Your mistake is in holding evolution as a static state rather than as a process. Just as people with disease may be driven against their own species, others are driven to eliminate the threat. If psychopathy was a superior evolutionary trait, it would be a dominant trait. If it's the next step in evolution (unlikely), then it will become a dominant trait.
The dominance of this trait irrelevant, and you mistake is presupposing that psychopathy is apparent- which in most cases it isn't. And it is not only psychopaths that do things that could be considered 'immoral', different people operate in different ways. Sure, everyone requires a system that would best suits their survival, but the fact that you are saying a universal system in which people must conduct themselves and to do otherwise would be objectively 'wrong' is what is false.
The definitions you provided push the question one step further to define what "right" is.
Exactly which answers itself with a person considers what is "right" and each individual has different considerations, thus subjective morality.
First, asking "who" begs the question.
Bad analogy, we know who say's we are morally obligated to keep ourselves alive: individuals. My thing is there is no universal agreement - and never will be - on a code of conduct which renders morality's entirety subjective.
---
I understand you are advocating for the objective aspect of morality. I don't disagree on the objective aspect, that is, that it objectively exist. However, I disagree that there is an objectively right way one must conduct oneself. Sure, it sounds nice to have a robotic species, but that's just fantastical thinking and should be saved for fictitious discourse.
Similarly you could argue that the drive to maintain ones own life is instinctual (the drive not the means). If these drives were instinctual it would actually benefit my position.
How so? This is the reason that I say there is a necessity of "god" in order to have objective moral truths; I say this because who's to say that we are morally obligated to keep ourselves alive? These drives are incessantly counteracted daily, and this is the essential problem moral absolutist face.
Psychological problems do not remove the impropriety or incorrectness from the action itself. Psychopaths have a condition that causes many of their actions to be incongruous to humanity.
The derivative in the basis of your argument is in terms of evolution, evolution produced these psychopaths which would therefore render the activities they do perfectly natural, so how could they do wrong by nature (as you say 'evolution' is the inclination for establishing objective morals) if nature - the cause of their predisposition - is the very reason for their 'wrongdoings'?
Before you can make this claim, you will need to define what "moral" and "morality" is. Unless your working definition is essentially the one I have previously provided, in which case your statement would likely be incorrect.
By all means pick a definition from the dictionary:
Morality
1- principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
2- a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society:
3- the extent to which an action is right or wrong
Moral
1- of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
moral attitudes.
2- expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.
3- founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom
4- capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct
5- conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral )
-----
Said action would go against an inherent trait of humanity and so is incorrect to/for humanity. Given the structure of my argument, incorrect in this context is morally incorrect and so can also be called "wrong".
Again, nature produced the predisposition that gave rise to these immoral actions so you mustn't invoke inheritance when humanity doesn't have a specified system upon which they must act on- which is why it must be rendered subjective.
my argument clearly holds morality to be a property of living human beings
This doesn't make it objective. Interpretation of beauty is a property of human beings (and somewhat quintessential to life) but that doesn't make it objective.
It is a property of living humans to maintain individual life and that of valued others.
Elaborate on 'valued others'. If you mean like the value of a child to its mother then I would argue that this value placement is entirely instinctual; and in the event a mother does the opposite then an argument can be made that she has psychological problems. This would not make actions that go against the inherent trait 'immoral'.
For humans to continue living (solitary or in groups), certain conditions must be met.
I feel as though your presupposing that humans have 'rights' to live.
To meet said conditions, certain actions must be done and certain actions must not be done.
In the event that the actions that must not be done in fact are, how, then, does that make them wrong (esp. if the previous premise isn't entirely true).
---
I wouldn't render this argument invalid just yet, rather unelaborated.
This is coming to an existential debate- you could just actually argue for suicide being immoral, your premises would support this notion if you exclude external value placements.
Want lazy asses to live off the government.
False.
This has some truth to it.
I agree entirely but I'm sure his essential point (erroneous as it may be) is in regards to species that are biologically/anatomically designed for reproduction through heterosexual mating.
He supports the notion that homosexuality (for heterosexually designed species) is some sort of disorder- this could have scientific explanations for why this notion could be a possibility given homosexuals abnormal neurological makeup.
