“I think you are abusing the analogies, as I was discussing asserted facets of rationality/irrationality with the analogies, and you remove them from that context and tried to compare their effect on society”
If we’re talking about moral evils, one of the most rational ways I can think of to compare them is how they affect society. In fac…
“I think you are abusing the analogies, as I was discussing asserted facets of rationality/irrationality with the analogies, and you remove them from that context and tried to compare their effect on society”
If we’re talking about moral evils, one of the most rational ways I can think of to compare them is how they affect society. In fact, it’s the *only* rational way I can think of to compare them. I’d argue that this is the basis for the entire legal system.
The severity of crimes is weighed against others, not by some arbitrary internal moral sense, but by the impact they have. Murder is more heavily punished than littering because the former crime has a greater impact on society.
I don’t see at all how I removed your statement from its context. I just applied a measure for rationality to it. If you’re using a different measure of rationality, that’s totally fine, you could just explain what that is.
I’m not attacking you, I’m not trying to have a fight or catch you in some kind of “gotcha”, I’m not trying to derail the point. I’m asking you a question based on my interpretation of something you said.
But I was not talking about moral evils, much less ranking them - I was talking about the irrational basis for values. I could have instead used examples of things I am irrationally supportive of rather than opposed to; evilness as NOT the point.
My point was to confess that my own abhorrence of cannibalism, etc is just as irrational as somebody else's abhorrence of abortion (based on religion or not). I was responding the what appears to be distain for the irrationality of religious beliefs, assertions that such beliefs are sustained by and based upon neurochemical reactions etc - and pointing out that some of my own "axiomatic" base values are just a much sustained by and based upon neurochemical reactions, rather than being objective facts of the universe.
I was not in any way talking about (rationally or irrationally) comparing moral evils, a different subject, nor severity of crimes. I made no assertions about "relative degrees of evilness", only about both some of my values and some of the values of anti-abortion folks both being derived from non-rational underpinnings.
TL:DR: I cannot honestly claim that my beliefs about murder/cannibalism/etc are entirely objective or rational, in contrast to the irrationality of the beliefs of anti-abortion folks. No discussion of relative evil or merit is involved.
“I think you are abusing the analogies, as I was discussing asserted facets of rationality/irrationality with the analogies, and you remove them from that context and tried to compare their effect on society”
If we’re talking about moral evils, one of the most rational ways I can think of to compare them is how they affect society. In fact, it’s the *only* rational way I can think of to compare them. I’d argue that this is the basis for the entire legal system.
The severity of crimes is weighed against others, not by some arbitrary internal moral sense, but by the impact they have. Murder is more heavily punished than littering because the former crime has a greater impact on society.
I don’t see at all how I removed your statement from its context. I just applied a measure for rationality to it. If you’re using a different measure of rationality, that’s totally fine, you could just explain what that is.
I’m not attacking you, I’m not trying to have a fight or catch you in some kind of “gotcha”, I’m not trying to derail the point. I’m asking you a question based on my interpretation of something you said.
>"If we’re talking about moral evils"
But I was not talking about moral evils, much less ranking them - I was talking about the irrational basis for values. I could have instead used examples of things I am irrationally supportive of rather than opposed to; evilness as NOT the point.
My point was to confess that my own abhorrence of cannibalism, etc is just as irrational as somebody else's abhorrence of abortion (based on religion or not). I was responding the what appears to be distain for the irrationality of religious beliefs, assertions that such beliefs are sustained by and based upon neurochemical reactions etc - and pointing out that some of my own "axiomatic" base values are just a much sustained by and based upon neurochemical reactions, rather than being objective facts of the universe.
I was not in any way talking about (rationally or irrationally) comparing moral evils, a different subject, nor severity of crimes. I made no assertions about "relative degrees of evilness", only about both some of my values and some of the values of anti-abortion folks both being derived from non-rational underpinnings.
TL:DR: I cannot honestly claim that my beliefs about murder/cannibalism/etc are entirely objective or rational, in contrast to the irrationality of the beliefs of anti-abortion folks. No discussion of relative evil or merit is involved.