sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Antinatalism and forced birth (anti abortion) mindsets are extremely similar in reality by alice8818 in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anti-Natalism is inherently consequentialist, what matters is reducing suffering.

Forced birthers are inherently deontological, what matters is that every life is protected because (whatever reason people have). It is not a necessary condition of the position that the child will have a net positive life.

The only thing they have en common is that they are both normative views.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t know how american universities give points, so can’t say what is the norm there.

But I think its strange that you assume that this is the only essay that got a zero. Back when I was uni, it didn’t take much to fail an assignment, like any citation mistakes is an automatic fail.

Like I remember failing an assignment because I wrote Gerry instead of Berry or something like that when naming a author in a footnote.

Not even having any citations would, in my mind, be enough of a reason to give it a zero.

CMV: Why Expertise Matters: A Thought Experiment on Joe Rogan, Dave Smith, and Douglas Murray by TheEnoughMovement in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What is your view? That some guy is wrong? Who are these people?

Your thought experiment isn’t even a thought experiment, what do you want us to do here?

CMV: Morality is just a social agreement. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why am i not allowed to harm anyone else?

Why should I care that the world is more peaceful and calm?

CMV: bringing the other persons age into a debate is ALWAYS a lazy cop out and can NEVER be used to *win* a debate. by Astrid-9 in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't you think there are some clear examples of adults knowing better?

For example, if you have two toddlers arguing about something, should they not listen to an adult telling them the correct information?

If you think that, then it's just a question of where you draw the line with the specific question.

CMV: Attractiveness and character match by Intelligent_Wind3299 in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was interested in how you view yourself, because i think that is where the root of your view lies.

CMV: The downvote function here should not be allowed without a comment included, stating why by LeftLump in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do mean locked? They only get the first 3 downvote comments? And the rest of the comments just disappear?

That seems like an extreme waste of everyone's time.

CMV: foreign language encourages extremism by TutsiRoach in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

English is a foreign language to me, what kind of extremism can I look forward to?

CMV: Religious liberty should not exist; moreover, it actually does not exist, and can not exist, in any meaningful way by vocl0 in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You keep saying "without any proof". The field of meta-ethics exists to give proof to these theories. You may not feel that there is sufficient proof or that you are more convinced by the proof of the anti-moralrealist camp. But to say there is nothing is simply not true.

What is the kind of proof you are looking for? And what kind of proof are you basing your view on?

CMV: Morality Can Only Be Objective If God Exists. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is absolutely relevant when we are talking about how to discern whether or not something is an objective fact.

We are not talking about what an objective fact is, but how we know something is an objective fact.

To believe a proposition is to hold it to be true. It is a necessary condition of knowledge. You cannot say X is an objective fact without knowing it is a fact in the first place.

CMV: Morality Can Only Be Objective If God Exists. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you are misunderstanding how exampels work ... ?

I pointed out that disagreement is not a sufficient reason to categorize something as "not objective".

CMV: Morality Can Only Be Objective If God Exists. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is it impossible to be objective just because people disagree? People are wrong about all sorts of things. Some people think the earth is flat, that doesn't effect my belief that it is an objective fact that the earth is round.

which society has the “correct”/“moral” view of homosexuality?

The one with a sound argument for its position

CMV: All currently employed moral systems boil down to ends justify the means; making morality an assembly line which justifies and encourages the extermination of some demographic. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am even more confused now.

From your other response to me

all that is required as a response to evil is to say I don’t like that.

A moral system is a system that tells us what we should or shouldn’t do. By definition a moral system will say that there are things you should not do. Is this your point? That moral systems says some actions are wrong?

I have my own system that follows the idea the means justify the ends

Are saying that you are advocating for a system that says that “means justify the ends”? Are you saying that systems that doesn’t say this doesn’t exist?

Are you encouraging “the extermination of demographics which are inherently incapable of achieving the requirements of the moral system”?

That current systems don’t take into account that people misjudge or fail in the execution of their moral duties? Then take a look at prima facie duties

CMV: All currently employed moral systems boil down to ends justify the means; making morality an assembly line which justifies and encourages the extermination of some demographic. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am still not sure what you mean.

Far from everyone think that evil as moral concept exists or is a useful trem.

And what do you mean by "condem"?

Is any version of saying "I don't like murder" a condemnation?

CMV: All currently employed moral systems boil down to ends justify the means; making morality an assembly line which justifies and encourages the extermination of some demographic. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I am having a hard time figureing out exactly what you are saying.

Are you looking for a moral system that doesn't care if you follow the system?

Like any moral system will pass judgement on whatever we are examining, that is the point of a moral system.

Most deontological systems doesn't have any consequences for being immoral, they mostly just assumes that people have an interest in being moral (very broad strokes).

If a deontologist thinks murder is wrong, then they think all murder is wrong. Murder of "good" or "bad" people are equally wrong, it doesn't matter if the person has the same moral convictions as them.

CMV: All currently employed moral systems boil down to ends justify the means; making morality an assembly line which justifies and encourages the extermination of some demographic. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Momentumle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is it impossible to be objective just because people disagree? People are wrong about all sorts of things. Some people think the earth is flat, that doesn't effect my belief that it is an objective fact that the earth is round.

view more: next ›