There are thousands of questions you could have had about the meta of the scenario but you went with a normative assessing of individual worth
And then I spoon fed you a meta question
Which you would’ve recognized if you had even opened the wiki
And you see that as “oh man better change my normative statement to another normative one!”
i dont get what ur trying to say here. all i wanted was an example. it took a while to make clear what the point of the example was.
Spoiler if you haven’t gotten it yet
The order doesn’t matter in metaethics
Really I’m just calling you an idiot in lots of words
1 for not reading about something you have no clue about
2 for acting like you did
And this is your problem with all of these discussions. Intuition and common-sense aren't very useful tools. It's the same way in science
well i can see that but it seems really pointless to me. you gave me an example. apparently i failed to interpret it correctly. to me it seems like you didnt explain it clearly but you have no obligation to, so nothing lost
But the thing is
It was explained clearly if only you knew how to follow basic instructions
It was explained very clearly. You didn't know how to interpret it because you refuse to put in the very little effort of reading a fucking wikipedia article
Killing 1 random baby versus 1 homeless adult versus 2 random babies versus a teenaged bill gates Rank it from most good to most evil
i have no ranking. so i gave you some criteria i expect could be used to make a ranking
Section 1 of the wiki has three questions that illuminate the difference between metaethical questions and ethics questions
3 sentences
all i did was ask for an example.
whatever this is pointless. i shall simply conclude you guys are not very good at examples.
1 Like
My example was wonderful and truly I should have went into academia
Yes, it's his fault for giving you one of the absolute textbook examples that's like the first day shit in the first class, not yours for refusing to get past the first paragraph of a wiki article
not everyone is good at explaining things. its okay.
1 Like
i don't agree with this.
i think they become more useful.
In most settings; when you are asked a metaethical question about a certain ethical claim you think about it and realize how different it feels
But you just ignored the question
No one tried to explain it. He told you to read the fucking wiki article. I told you to read the wiki article. You didn't. Don't fucking displace the blame.
What do you mean? Because there's a distinction between intuition at-large and common-sense and things like "mathematical intuition."