Posted: Nov 07, 2013 6:45 pm
4 Hours wrote:Calilasseia wrote:The point being made here, and one I agree with, is that it doesn't matter how many people hold a particular principle. If that principle is either at variance with observational reality, or the source of avoidable harm inflcited upon others, then that principle needs to be changed. I gather the history of the Quaker movement includes instances of people seeking to do precisely that.
You don't get to derive oughts from ises through "observational reality" in this manner
Mere assertion. One that looks shaky in the light of the scientific papers I've presented on this matter. Not to mention the fact that numerous people have been documented developing their ethical viewpoint in this manner.
4 Hours wrote:any more than you do in "observing" the gruesome deaths inflicted upon field animals by combine harvesters and concluding that mechanized farming is immoral therewith.
Citation for this?
4 Hours wrote:The gap that's not filled in your case is "values" and, ultimately, values are subjective.
Already addressed that above, by noting how values resulting in observable harm have been changed. Anti-slavery movement, women's suffrage & civil rights movement, anyone?
4 Hours wrote:Do you by any chance eat meat, Calilasseia? If so, then I can make an a fortiori case for what I just said.
Oh this will be interesting. I am Very ExcitedTM at the prospect.