Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

An Objection to Act Consequentialism

Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 8:58:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just thought I might share a short objection to act consequentialism.
Parfit claims we can ask us two questions:

"What do I have most reason to do?" and
"What ought I morally to do?"

He further claims that, if the answer to these questions conflicts more often than not, then morality is undermined. For morality to matter we must have reason to act morally.
Now, I'm not quite sure how much of the following is his conclusion and how much is mine. He seemed at least to imply this.

If act consequentialism is true, then it seems we very often have most reason not to act morally. Thus, act consequentialism would be undermining morality.

Thoughts?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 10:40:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 8:58:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:

If act consequentialism is true, then it seems we very often have most reason not to act morally. Thus, act consequentialism would be undermining morality.

Thoughts?

Is "act consequentialism" a specific type of consequentialism. (I searched wiki and did not find anything."

As far as Utilitarianism I would answer that the questions,

"What do I have most reason to do?" and
"What ought I morally to do?"

are not at odds. What you have most reason to do could very well be what you ought to do.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 2:21:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 10:40:27 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 8/31/2015 8:58:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:

If act consequentialism is true, then it seems we very often have most reason not to act morally. Thus, act consequentialism would be undermining morality.

Thoughts?

Is "act consequentialism" a specific type of consequentialism. (I searched wiki and did not find anything."
Yes, Mill's utilitarianism is usually taken to be act consequentialist, but sometimes he can afaik be read as a rule consequentialist.

As far as Utilitarianism I would answer that the questions,

"What do I have most reason to do?" and
"What ought I morally to do?"

are not at odds. What you have most reason to do could very well be what you ought to do.
Well, I did not support the argument with anything. It's hardly even an argument. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is rather easy to come up with examples where utilitarians seem forced to accept some kind of repugnant conclusion that goes contrary to anything the usual person has reason to.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 3:02:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 10:40:27 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 8/31/2015 8:58:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:

If act consequentialism is true, then it seems we very often have most reason not to act morally. Thus, act consequentialism would be undermining morality.

Thoughts?

Is "act consequentialism" a specific type of consequentialism. (I searched wiki and did not find anything."

As far as Utilitarianism I would answer that the questions,

"What do I have most reason to do?" and
"What ought I morally to do?"

are not at odds. What you have most reason to do could very well be what you ought to do.

There's a subheading in this article -- http://plato.stanford.edu...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 5:29:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, I did not support the argument with anything. It's hardly even an argument. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is rather easy to come up with examples where utilitarians seem forced to accept some kind of repugnant conclusion that goes contrary to anything the usual person has reason to.

For kicks and giggles.... what are some of those examples.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 7:43:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 5:29:27 PM, kasmic wrote:
Well, I did not support the argument with anything. It's hardly even an argument. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is rather easy to come up with examples where utilitarians seem forced to accept some kind of repugnant conclusion that goes contrary to anything the usual person has reason to.

For kicks and giggles.... what are some of those examples.

For example, Peter Singer suggests that treating your own child way better than some total stranger is unjustified. But we do that daily and and hardly anybody has reason to change that. So both statements conflict each time we do that.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 7:47:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 7:43:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/1/2015 5:29:27 PM, kasmic wrote:
Well, I did not support the argument with anything. It's hardly even an argument. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is rather easy to come up with examples where utilitarians seem forced to accept some kind of repugnant conclusion that goes contrary to anything the usual person has reason to.

For kicks and giggles.... what are some of those examples.

For example, Peter Singer suggests that treating your own child way better than some total stranger is unjustified. But we do that daily and and hardly anybody has reason to change that. So both statements conflict each time we do that.

From a greater happiness standpoint it would seem to me that parents and children derive more happiness based on benefits of those relationships.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 7:52:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 7:47:29 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 9/1/2015 7:43:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/1/2015 5:29:27 PM, kasmic wrote:
Well, I did not support the argument with anything. It's hardly even an argument. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is rather easy to come up with examples where utilitarians seem forced to accept some kind of repugnant conclusion that goes contrary to anything the usual person has reason to.

For kicks and giggles.... what are some of those examples.

For example, Peter Singer suggests that treating your own child way better than some total stranger is unjustified. But we do that daily and and hardly anybody has reason to change that. So both statements conflict each time we do that.

From a greater happiness standpoint it would seem to me that parents and children derive more happiness based on benefits of those relationships.
Sure, but think about how much of this "investment" is necessary before you have a surplus that would be better spend (from a utilitarian PoV) on, say, charity.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 8:00:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 7:52:21 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/1/2015 7:47:29 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 9/1/2015 7:43:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/1/2015 5:29:27 PM, kasmic wrote:
Well, I did not support the argument with anything. It's hardly even an argument. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is rather easy to come up with examples where utilitarians seem forced to accept some kind of repugnant conclusion that goes contrary to anything the usual person has reason to.

For kicks and giggles.... what are some of those examples.

For example, Peter Singer suggests that treating your own child way better than some total stranger is unjustified. But we do that daily and and hardly anybody has reason to change that. So both statements conflict each time we do that.

From a greater happiness standpoint it would seem to me that parents and children derive more happiness based on benefits of those relationships.
Sure, but think about how much of this "investment" is necessary before you have a surplus that would be better spend (from a utilitarian PoV) on, say, charity.

Ah, so like a law of diminishing returns.... for relationships... haha
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 5:28:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This argument takes for granted that "morality" is not "that which maximizes the good".

Thus, the argument reduces to "It seems like Act Consequentialism is false".

As usual, your arguments are terrible.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:24:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 8:58:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:
"What do I have most reason to do?"

It's seems that your argument hinges a lot on this concept of a "reason". Until you give an elaborated explanation of what that entails, the argument is just ambiguous, IMO. Because it can't work with a general definition; it's being used like a technical term. "What is my 'reason' to / not to act morally?" This assumes some standard already. There could be a whole metaphysic in there.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:26:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 5:28:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As usual, your arguments are terrible.

It's not his argument, and he never said he agrees with it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:35:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 8:58:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I just thought I might share a short objection to act consequentialism.
Parfit claims we can ask us two questions:

"What do I have most reason to do?" and
"What ought I morally to do?"

He further claims that, if the answer to these questions conflicts more often than not, then morality is undermined. For morality to matter we must have reason to act morally.
Now, I'm not quite sure how much of the following is his conclusion and how much is mine. He seemed at least to imply this.

If act consequentialism is true, then it seems we very often have most reason not to act morally. Thus, act consequentialism would be undermining morality.
How do you get the idea that act conseqentialism advocates acting contra morality without already presupposing that there's a valid non-consequentialist moral framework? Aren't you just assuming that act consequentialism isn't correct to begin with?
Thoughts?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:40:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 7:26:22 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/4/2015 5:28:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As usual, your arguments are terrible.

It's not his argument, and he never said he agrees with it.

He said it's an objection and seems to agree that it's a cogent objection. I'd say it's vague, but dylan interpreted it in the least charitable way. It's just his Cartesian Linguistics at work okay.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:42:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 5:28:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This argument takes for granted that "morality" is not "that which maximizes the good".
Simply put, no it does not.

Thus, the argument reduces to "It seems like Act Consequentialism is false".
You are getting better at strawmaning. Maybe now is the time to try and understand what the argument says.

As usual, your arguments are terrible.
Thank you very much for you insightful feedback.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:51:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 7:40:44 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/4/2015 7:26:22 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/4/2015 5:28:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As usual, your arguments are terrible.

It's not his argument, and he never said he agrees with it.

He said it's an objection and seems to agree that it's a cogent objection.
Let's say, it made me think. I am a act consequentialist of sorts myself, but so far I have been working under the assumption that ethics does not have to be commonsensical as there would be little gain in constructing a theory virtually identical to everyday morality. I did not consider strong counter intuitivity to be more than, well, an appeal to intuition.

I'd say it's vague, but dylan interpreted it in the least charitable way. It's just his Cartesian Linguistics at work okay.
lol
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 7:54:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 7:35:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/31/2015 8:58:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I just thought I might share a short objection to act consequentialism.
Parfit claims we can ask us two questions:

"What do I have most reason to do?" and
"What ought I morally to do?"

He further claims that, if the answer to these questions conflicts more often than not, then morality is undermined. For morality to matter we must have reason to act morally.
Now, I'm not quite sure how much of the following is his conclusion and how much is mine. He seemed at least to imply this.

If act consequentialism is true, then it seems we very often have most reason not to act morally. Thus, act consequentialism would be undermining morality.
How do you get the idea that act conseqentialism advocates acting contra morality without already presupposing that there's a valid non-consequentialist moral framework?
I don't. What you have reason to do is a normative, not necessarily a moral issue.

Aren't you just assuming that act consequentialism isn't correct to begin with?
Not really, no.

Thoughts?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 8:09:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 7:54:53 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/4/2015 7:35:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/31/2015 8:58:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I just thought I might share a short objection to act consequentialism.
Parfit claims we can ask us two questions:

"What do I have most reason to do?" and
"What ought I morally to do?"

He further claims that, if the answer to these questions conflicts more often than not, then morality is undermined. For morality to matter we must have reason to act morally.
Now, I'm not quite sure how much of the following is his conclusion and how much is mine. He seemed at least to imply this.

If act consequentialism is true, then it seems we very often have most reason not to act morally. Thus, act consequentialism would be undermining morality.
How do you get the idea that act conseqentialism advocates acting contra morality without already presupposing that there's a valid non-consequentialist moral framework?
I don't. What you have reason to do is a normative, not necessarily a moral issue.
That's an arbitrary distinction to make. What is morally correct is, by the accounts of most philosophers, synonymous with what one should do - "["Morality is used] normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons." (http://plato.stanford.edu...)

Aren't you just assuming that act consequentialism isn't correct to begin with?
Not really, no.
If it's a valid moral system, then one should follow it, and, if one should only do what is rational, it would have to be rational itself (thus making it both moral and what one should rationally follow). You have to deny one of the two, which would deny the other outright, meaning that you can't say that it's "morally correct but normatively incorrect", so you're basically left with "act consequentialism is incorrect because it's incorrect".
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 8:16:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 7:42:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/4/2015 5:28:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This argument takes for granted that "morality" is not "that which maximizes the good".
Simply put, no it does not.

Yes it does. By definition, you ought to do what you ought to do. So if act consequentialism is valid, then the notion that you have no "reason" to follow it is simply false.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 8:19:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 7:40:44 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/4/2015 7:26:22 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/4/2015 5:28:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
As usual, your arguments are terrible.

It's not his argument, and he never said he agrees with it.

He said it's an objection and seems to agree that it's a cogent objection. I'd say it's vague, but dylan interpreted it in the least charitable way. It's just his Cartesian Linguistics at work okay.

I sort of misspoke. I didn't mean to imply that he agreed with the argument. I meant it was "his" argument only in the sense that he was presenting it.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 8:28:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 8:09:43 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/4/2015 7:54:53 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/4/2015 7:35:14 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 8/31/2015 8:58:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I just thought I might share a short objection to act consequentialism.
Parfit claims we can ask us two questions:

"What do I have most reason to do?" and
"What ought I morally to do?"

He further claims that, if the answer to these questions conflicts more often than not, then morality is undermined. For morality to matter we must have reason to act morally.
Now, I'm not quite sure how much of the following is his conclusion and how much is mine. He seemed at least to imply this.

If act consequentialism is true, then it seems we very often have most reason not to act morally. Thus, act consequentialism would be undermining morality.
How do you get the idea that act conseqentialism advocates acting contra morality without already presupposing that there's a valid non-consequentialist moral framework?
I don't. What you have reason to do is a normative, not necessarily a moral issue.
That's an arbitrary distinction to make. What is morally correct is, by the accounts of most philosophers, synonymous with what one should do - "["Morality is used] normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons." (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
Of course, that is why I said it's "not necessarily a moral issue". It can of course be and more often than not is.

Aren't you just assuming that act consequentialism isn't correct to begin with?
Not really, no.
If it's a valid moral system, then one should follow it
Sure. If it is, then you have good reason to do what it says.

, and, if one should only do what is rational, it would have to be rational itself (thus making it both moral and what one should rationally follow).
That's the point argued against.

You have to deny one of the two, which would deny the other outright,
Why should that be?

meaning that you can't say that it's "morally correct but normatively incorrect"
I sure can do that. Act consequentialism goes against a lot what many people hold dear.

, so you're basically left with "act consequentialism is incorrect because it's incorrect".
I'm not going to comment on that.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 8:32:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 8:16:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/4/2015 7:42:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/4/2015 5:28:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This argument takes for granted that "morality" is not "that which maximizes the good".
Simply put, no it does not.

Yes it does.
No it does not. It is assumed for the sake of the argument that morally good is precisely that what has the best consequences.

By definition, you ought to do what you ought to do.
To which I of course agree.

So if act consequentialism is valid, then the notion that you have no "reason" to follow it is simply false.
I have not said no reason. Not overriding reason is sufficient to make the point.

Look I'm getting really tired of your arrogant and dismissive attitude, so I suggest we debate any of my "terrible" arguments or anything we have disagreed on.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 8:37:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 8:28:12 PM, Fkkize wrote:
That's an arbitrary distinction to make. What is morally correct is, by the accounts of most philosophers, synonymous with what one should do - "["Morality is used] normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons." (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
Of course, that is why I said it's "not necessarily a moral issue". It can of course be and more often than not is.
Uh, no. It IS, by definition, necessarily a moral issue. It's literally right in the definition that normative claims are moral claims...
Aren't you just assuming that act consequentialism isn't correct to begin with?
Not really, no.
If it's a valid moral system, then one should follow it
Sure. If it is, then you have good reason to do what it says.
Meaning that there's absolutely no distinction between normativity and morality.
, and, if one should only do what is rational, it would have to be rational itself (thus making it both moral and what one should rationally follow).
That's the point argued against.
Which invalidates the argument you gave, considering that it tries to contradict a pure definition.
You have to deny one of the two, which would deny the other outright,
Why should that be?
Because they're synonymous.
meaning that you can't say that it's "morally correct but normatively incorrect"
I sure can do that. Act consequentialism goes against a lot what many people hold dear.
You do realize that "morally correct" =/= "what people think is morally correct", right?
, so you're basically left with "act consequentialism is incorrect because it's incorrect".
I'm not going to comment on that.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2015 8:50:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/4/2015 8:37:51 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/4/2015 8:28:12 PM, Fkkize wrote:
That's an arbitrary distinction to make. What is morally correct is, by the accounts of most philosophers, synonymous with what one should do - "["Morality is used] normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons." (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
Of course, that is why I said it's "not necessarily a moral issue". It can of course be and more often than not is.
Uh, no. It IS, by definition, necessarily a moral issue. It's literally right in the definition that normative claims are moral claims...
SEP says that all moral issues are normative issues, not that all normative issues are moral issues.

Aren't you just assuming that act consequentialism isn't correct to begin with?
Not really, no.
If it's a valid moral system, then one should follow it
Sure. If it is, then you have good reason to do what it says.
Meaning that there's absolutely no distinction between normativity and morality.
, and, if one should only do what is rational, it would have to be rational itself (thus making it both moral and what one should rationally follow).
That's the point argued against.
Which invalidates the argument you gave, considering that it tries to contradict a pure definition.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Nothing in this paragraph has anything to do with what has been argued for.

You have to deny one of the two, which would deny the other outright,
Why should that be?
Because they're synonymous.
meaning that you can't say that it's "morally correct but normatively incorrect"
I sure can do that. Act consequentialism goes against a lot what many people hold dear.
You do realize that "morally correct" =/= "what people think is morally correct", right?
I sure do. That is the point.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic