Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Any moral realists in the house?

NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Yes, I'm a moral realist. I've only really read some natural law, so I'd tend to say that there are things which inherently fulfill our nature (thus, good) and things which degrade our nature (thus bad.) It seems obvious that there would be an obligation towards the good, and an obligation to avoid the bad...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 6:42:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

If by "categorical imperatives," you mean the one moral imperatives that all other moral imperatives are derived from, I don't have one. I don't think morality can be reduced to just one imperative.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 6:44:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

But what if you're a Vulcan? Would "the good" be "the bad" in that case since it's unnatural for a Vulcan to be a human? Or would you say "the good" for a Vulcan is whatever makes them "more Vulcan," which might be different than what makes us "more human"? If so, isn't that a form of moral relativism?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 6:47:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 6:44:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

But what if you're a Vulcan? Would "the good" be "the bad" in that case since it's unnatural for a Vulcan to be a human? Or would you say "the good" for a Vulcan is whatever makes them "more Vulcan," which might be different than what makes us "more human"? If so, isn't that a form of moral relativism?

Well any time a person has different moral responsibilities than another person, does that mean it's moral relativism?

In the case of a Vulcan, they're essentially the same as humans, since they're rational.

Saying "To act contrary to your nature" isn't moral relativism, even if the nature of things is different. But acting supposes you're a rational being, which would essentially make you on the same level as a human.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:15:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 6:47:59 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:44:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

But what if you're a Vulcan? Would "the good" be "the bad" in that case since it's unnatural for a Vulcan to be a human? Or would you say "the good" for a Vulcan is whatever makes them "more Vulcan," which might be different than what makes us "more human"? If so, isn't that a form of moral relativism?

Well any time a person has different moral responsibilities than another person, does that mean it's moral relativism?

No, I guess not.


In the case of a Vulcan, they're essentially the same as humans, since they're rational.

Spock would find that statement offensive.


Saying "To act contrary to your nature" isn't moral relativism, even if the nature of things is different. But acting supposes you're a rational being, which would essentially make you on the same level as a human.

Spock is rolling over in his grave. No wait. Spock hasn't been born yet.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:52:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Yes, I'm a moral realist. I've only really read some natural law, so I'd tend to say that there are things which inherently fulfill our nature (thus, good) and things which degrade our nature (thus bad.) It seems obvious that there would be an obligation towards the good, and an obligation to avoid the bad...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

Natural law is still a thing? Are you a Scholastic too?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:53:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Yes, I'm a moral realist. I've only really read some natural law, so I'd tend to say that there are things which inherently fulfill our nature (thus, good) and things which degrade our nature (thus bad.) It seems obvious that there would be an obligation towards the good, and an obligation to avoid the bad...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

This rests on the idea that if X goes against our nature, X is immoral. Why believe that?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:59:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, what is "rational" is relative. Maybe there is some advanced race who are rational, but don't have sympathy or empathy. There are 4 times as many makes born as females. So, they go on a male genocide to even things up. Are they irrational? Well, to you, because you feel "bad" for those people, but they don't, so what they are doing is rational.

I think "morality" only comes from us being a social species, with the emotions we do, I don't think these things are inherent to intelligence, and rationality.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:20:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:52:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Yes, I'm a moral realist. I've only really read some natural law, so I'd tend to say that there are things which inherently fulfill our nature (thus, good) and things which degrade our nature (thus bad.) It seems obvious that there would be an obligation towards the good, and an obligation to avoid the bad...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

Natural law is still a thing? Are you a Scholastic too?

Lol... I think natural law is good in theory, but I'm not sure of its application in real life, particularly with sexual ethics. I mean I agree with it, but I'm not sure how strong it is. I guess I'd consider myself something of a Scholastic.... Not exactly a hard-core Scholastic, but I tend towards Aristotle/Aquinas in some matters of metaphysics.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Somanycrates
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:20:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Moral realism depends on the ontological existence of "good" and "evil" these can be provided by abstract objects or by some sort of God.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:21:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:53:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Yes, I'm a moral realist. I've only really read some natural law, so I'd tend to say that there are things which inherently fulfill our nature (thus, good) and things which degrade our nature (thus bad.) It seems obvious that there would be an obligation towards the good, and an obligation to avoid the bad...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

This rests on the idea that if X goes against our nature, X is immoral. Why believe that?

Put it this way:

A triangle which is more accurately drawn is a "better" triangle. Consequently, a man which attains fulfillment of what it means to be a rational being is a "better" man.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:25:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:59:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, what is "rational" is relative. Maybe there is some advanced race who are rational, but don't have sympathy or empathy. There are 4 times as many makes born as females. So, they go on a male genocide to even things up. Are they irrational? Well, to you, because you feel "bad" for those people, but they don't, so what they are doing is rational.


No it's not. There may be varying degrees of it, but we are able to think rationally, and make choices. We may differ with that other species in degree, but not in kind.

I think "morality" only comes from us being a social species, with the emotions we do, I don't think these things are inherent to intelligence, and rationality.

I admittedly don't know much about ethics. However, natural law takes the position that what is moral and immoral is determined by reason and our human nature.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:27:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:15:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:47:59 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:44:45 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

But what if you're a Vulcan? Would "the good" be "the bad" in that case since it's unnatural for a Vulcan to be a human? Or would you say "the good" for a Vulcan is whatever makes them "more Vulcan," which might be different than what makes us "more human"? If so, isn't that a form of moral relativism?

Well any time a person has different moral responsibilities than another person, does that mean it's moral relativism?

No, I guess not.


In the case of a Vulcan, they're essentially the same as humans, since they're rational.

Spock would find that statement offensive.


He should go streaking.


Saying "To act contrary to your nature" isn't moral relativism, even if the nature of things is different. But acting supposes you're a rational being, which would essentially make you on the same level as a human.

Spock is rolling over in his grave. No wait. Spock hasn't been born yet.

I'm not a Trekkie, so I can't say I get that... :P
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:30:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:20:15 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:52:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Yes, I'm a moral realist. I've only really read some natural law, so I'd tend to say that there are things which inherently fulfill our nature (thus, good) and things which degrade our nature (thus bad.) It seems obvious that there would be an obligation towards the good, and an obligation to avoid the bad...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

Natural law is still a thing? Are you a Scholastic too?

Lol... I think natural law is good in theory, but I'm not sure of its application in real life, particularly with sexual ethics.

That's part of the problem with a lot of it. Its application is fertile ground for reductios.

I mean I agree with it, but I'm not sure how strong it is. I guess I'd consider myself something of a Scholastic.... Not exactly a hard-core Scholastic, but I tend towards Aristotle/Aquinas in some matters of metaphysics.

Gross.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:30:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:21:42 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:53:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Yes, I'm a moral realist. I've only really read some natural law, so I'd tend to say that there are things which inherently fulfill our nature (thus, good) and things which degrade our nature (thus bad.) It seems obvious that there would be an obligation towards the good, and an obligation to avoid the bad...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

This rests on the idea that if X goes against our nature, X is immoral. Why believe that?

Put it this way:

A triangle which is more accurately drawn is a "better" triangle. Consequently, a man which attains fulfillment of what it means to be a rational being is a "better" man.

Ya, and a rapist who rapes more girls is the "better" rapist. Does that make him a "better" man? This is an equivocation on "better".

Just because something is better in one context, doesn't mean it is better morality wise
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:32:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:30:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 8:21:42 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:53:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Yes, I'm a moral realist. I've only really read some natural law, so I'd tend to say that there are things which inherently fulfill our nature (thus, good) and things which degrade our nature (thus bad.) It seems obvious that there would be an obligation towards the good, and an obligation to avoid the bad...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

This rests on the idea that if X goes against our nature, X is immoral. Why believe that?

Put it this way:

A triangle which is more accurately drawn is a "better" triangle. Consequently, a man which attains fulfillment of what it means to be a rational being is a "better" man.



Ya, and a rapist who rapes more girls is the "better" rapist. Does that make him a "better" man? This is an equivocation on "better".


A rapist wouldn't be a true form, but rather a perversion of the form of a man.

Just because something is better in one context, doesn't mean it is better morality wise
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:36:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:25:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:59:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, what is "rational" is relative. Maybe there is some advanced race who are rational, but don't have sympathy or empathy. There are 4 times as many makes born as females. So, they go on a male genocide to even things up. Are they irrational? Well, to you, because you feel "bad" for those people, but they don't, so what they are doing is rational.


No it's not. There may be varying degrees of it, but we are able to think rationally, and make choices. We may differ with that other species in degree, but not in kind.

We can imagine a possible world in which a bunch of rational animals are born with the Earth to build spheres, this is how they gain energy and survive. Everything they build needs to be spherical, to the furthest extent. To them "throwing away food" isn't irrational, but to us it is.

What I mean to say is that WHAT is rational is relative. Killing someone for no reason is irrational to us, because it causes heartache to the family, makes us feel guilt, due to sympathy, and emotion... However, if there is a species without that, why wouldn't they kill like that?


I think "morality" only comes from us being a social species, with the emotions we do, I don't think these things are inherent to intelligence, and rationality.

I admittedly don't know much about ethics. However, natural law takes the position that what is moral and immoral is determined by reason and our human nature.

Well, I don't think that is a good theory. It assumes going against our nature is necessarily immoral, but there is no good reason to believe that. I guess it is immoral to titty f*ck my girl, as clevage's natural use isn't for that... Damn it lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:40:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 8:32:28 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 8:30:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 8:21:42 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:53:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 6:41:18 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Yes, I'm a moral realist. I've only really read some natural law, so I'd tend to say that there are things which inherently fulfill our nature (thus, good) and things which degrade our nature (thus bad.) It seems obvious that there would be an obligation towards the good, and an obligation to avoid the bad...since "the good" is just what makes us "more human."

This rests on the idea that if X goes against our nature, X is immoral. Why believe that?

Put it this way:

A triangle which is more accurately drawn is a "better" triangle. Consequently, a man which attains fulfillment of what it means to be a rational being is a "better" man.



Ya, and a rapist who rapes more girls is the "better" rapist. Does that make him a "better" man? This is an equivocation on "better".


A rapist wouldn't be a true form, but rather a perversion of the form of a man.

Regardless, you still haven't given a single reason to think that going against our nature means that we are immoral. As I said, just because something is better in one context, doesn't mean it is better in a moral contest. Yes, it is better for a triangle to be more accurately drawn, but that has nothing to do with morality, or conduct.


Just because something is better in one context, doesn't mean it is better morality wise
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 8:57:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's a reason appeal to nature can be considered a logical fallacy.

Of course, that's not to say we can't ever base things off of nature. A lot of philosophers did that >_>

But if possible we should find a better guide than nature. And I think that exists.
Vernich
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:23:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Would you like to debate this with me?
Thou sayeth becoming is eternal, feel then my scythe and see.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 11:48:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:23:17 PM, Vernich wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Would you like to debate this with me?

On what particular matter? I don't think I have taken a position yet on moral realism to be able to debate about it.
Vernich
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 2:07:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 11:48:10 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 11:23:17 PM, Vernich wrote:
At 3/4/2014 10:30:53 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
If you are a moral realist, what is the categorical imperative that grounds your categorical norms, and how would you defend it?

The purpose of this is just for me to get different inputs as I'm starting to read academic papers and books on morality and moral realism. I don't intend to debate or disprove anyone, although that could be implied because of my gangsta tone in the title.

Would you like to debate this with me?

On what particular matter? I don't think I have taken a position yet on moral realism to be able to debate about it.

On which worldview best accommodates the dignity of persons... say if you end up becoming convinced of consequantialism, I would certainly want to engage against your view there.
Thou sayeth becoming is eternal, feel then my scythe and see.