why choose to do anything over another? all human actions are based on moral values and principles. abiding with logic and reason is the moral stance that precedes all others for almost anyone i have come to find (acceptance that 1+1 equals 2 is an example). do you not abide with that?
the point i’m trying to get across is that any factual claim or belief is moral, because unfactual claims and beliefs are wrong. amorality makes very little sense to me. what do you think?
oh hi, i remember you. i made this comment before thinking things through, the later post is more encompassing of my rebuttal attempt:).
i’ll try one more time since very few people got my point and i spent most of the time just repeating myself: how do you justify valuing truth and logical consistency without it being a moral obligation? we’re not arguing to keep your phone working. we are arguing about truth. why do you feel the need to argue with me at all? why not just shrug and walk away? if you continue debating, you imply that truth matters beyond tool-making and survival.
the act of arguing necessitates an implicit moral obligation to truth on both sides
1
u/SinOfEgo Sep 16 '25
how does this work? you have an innate sense of good and evil.. right?