MATT No, I say that because I believe "people should treat each other with respect" to be a fact, and if it is a fact then my belief is true
CARR And it is a fact that you should not kick the ball into your own net in football.
There is no rule in football about it. It is not against the laws of the game.
But if you want to achieve the object of the game, then it is objectively wrong to kick the ball in your own net.
If you want to acheive the goal of increasing the well-being of humanity in general, and individuals in particular, then you should (in general) respect other people.
This is no more mysterious than a claim that you should avoid kicking the ball in your own net in football.
Compare the Christian view , as expressed by Justin when talking to Dawkins 'When you make a value judgement don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it's good.'
The reason something is good is that it's good?
Philosophers call this a 'tautology', not an 'argument'.
no subject
No, I say that because I believe "people should treat each other with respect" to be a fact, and if it is a fact then my belief is true
CARR
And it is a fact that you should not kick the ball into your own net in football.
There is no rule in football about it. It is not against the laws of the game.
But if you want to achieve the object of the game, then it is objectively wrong to kick the ball in your own net.
If you want to acheive the goal of increasing the well-being of humanity in general, and individuals in particular, then you should (in general) respect other people.
This is no more mysterious than a claim that you should avoid kicking the ball in your own net in football.
Compare the Christian view , as expressed by Justin when talking to Dawkins 'When you make a value judgement don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it's good.'
The reason something is good is that it's good?
Philosophers call this a 'tautology', not an 'argument'.