Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, it is perfectly clear that moral reasoning as a process does not lead to a absolutely/objectively better or a more absolutely/objectively insightful understanding of ethics than what the herd believes. Just admit it...

I've inserted the words you continually omit, again. And I have admitted this is true from the outset. I've never disagreed with it.

You are blinded by your framework, Seer. There is no purpose in continuing. I will leave you to your unsupported assertion.

[seer]

I've inserted the words you continually omit, again. And I have admitted this is true from the outset. I've never disagreed with it.

You are blinded by your framework, Seer. There is no purpose in continuing. I will leave you to your unsupported assertion.

No Carp, the point is that the moral reasoning process can not be the determiner for understanding ethics. In other words, logically, is no better than following the herd. It just makes you fell better about yourself...

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, the point is that the moral reasoning process can not be the determiner for understanding ethics.

It is amazing to me that anyone can write that sentence and believe it. By extension, we should not be using reasoning in coming to moral conclusions. Little wonder that there is no way to reason with someone who takes this position. You have essentially made my point.

In other words, logically, is no better than following the herd. It just makes you fell better about yourself...

You have not shown this.

[seer]

It is amazing to me that anyone can write that sentence and believe it. By extension, we should not be using reasoning in coming to moral conclusions. Little wonder that there is no way to reason with someone who takes this position. You have essentially made my point.

Again, how is the process (and I'm speaking of the process here) a determiner for understanding ethics if it can lead both to human rights or killing dissenters by the truck load? How is that better than Fred who simply follows what he was taught growing up? You have not shown why such reasoning is superior. Your main point is not about the actual ethics it produces (human rights vs. killing dissenters) it is the process that counts.

[carpedm9587]

Again, how is the process (and I'm speaking of the process here) a determiner for understanding ethics if it can lead both to human rights or killing dissenters by the truck load?

Already answered - multiple times.

How is that better than Fred who simply follows what he was taught growing up?

Already answered - multiple times.

You have not shown why such reasoning is superior.

I have - multiple times.

Your main point is not about the actual ethics it produces (human rights vs. killing dissenters) it is the process that counts.

No.

Sorry, Seer, but I just don't see it as a valuable use of my time to repeat arguments I have made multiple times when you show every sign of simply being incapable of understanding them. As best I can tell, you are so completely locked into the "absolute/objective" framework that you are incapable of seeing outside of it, or even recognizing that you are locked into it. I don't see that further discussion on this topic is useful unless/until you can see past that obstacle.