4 ms·
the consequences and responsibility fall on different parties. Children inherently cannot have responsibility because they are children. It's a wrong-headed c
by monknomo 1y ago
the consequences and responsibility fall on different parties. Children inherently cannot have responsibility because they are children.
It's a wrong-headed counterargument. I'll agree that people can argue about the answer, but it is perfectly clear to me. I'd also say it's a value-system driven argument which I see as different than a belief driven argument
- glitchc 1y agoBeliefs separate from values.. that's a strange dichotomy. Do you harbour beliefs that conflict with your values?
- godelski 1y ago> Do you harbour beliefs that conflict with your values? I'm not sure how long you've been human for, but this is in fact a common thing. Common for all living creatures really. Unfortunately we cannot always uphold the full idealized versions of our beliefs due to constraints of the world we live in. But on the other hand, if your beliefs weren't beyond our capabilities then we'd never improve. (I'll assume it is "not very long")
- glitchc 1y agoI can tell from the ad hominem that you have confused pop philosophy for the real thing. A book on ethics might be a good start. I suggest Blackburn. We'll just leave it at that.
- godelski 1y agoIdk man, I didn't say anything that radical. We live in a world where the most conservative people tend to worship people that say feed the poor. That seems pretty hypocritical to me. All humans are to some degree, but there's a difference between internal and external based concessions