Yes, and he asked you why you are using the claim of value to make an ethical claim
why do these matter?
those are the mechanisms by which humans end up with the idea to “save women and children first”
what are?
biological and social factors. maybe you have an innate tendency to save women and children first. maybe society convinces you to save women and children first. these aspects combine to result in the apparent policy.
So how do we reconcile this:
One society believes the men must always take priority because they are the warriors of the society and protect the society so it may live on
One society believes women and children should be saved first
The morality you are describing is a relativistic way of determining morality. Social and biological factors are how we should determine the morality of X. But these two societies have very different factors despite their similar biologies
Who is right
What are the societal factors that convince you? Why did society ostensibly adopt the idea that women and children should be saved over adult men in times of crisis? Are those societal influences actually good reasons to have the ethical system that you do?
no. i said that biological and social factors do determine their moralities.
i dont know any ways to answer questions with the word should in them that do not already presuppose an ethical principle.
what is the mechanism youre disassembling?
Use the reply button
why do you think this is?
Ethical principles aren't just presupposed. They're justified. This is what we keep saying: you make a claim and provide absolutely no justification. There are frameworks to analyze the different ethical systems and make arguments for why one should be preferred. This is what one of the 3 main branches of what meta-ethics does.
Did you not even get through the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article this time?
the societal factors didnt convince me on an intellectual level. i dont believe in the principle. they probably affected me at an unconscious level that would cause me to disproportionately save women and children first even if i do not mentally believe it is necessarily correct.
One of 3 of ethics but yes
honestly hbotz, i think you're so stuck on whatever reality you've alread formed in your head (for logic and amorality) that you won't show up willing to engage in a genuine manner that would be required to receive any new info or perspective shift. you're expecting others to confirm the opinions you've already formed because you're not willing to be disproven
You didn't answer any of the questions. Isolate the societal factors. The notion of "women and children first" isn't the societal factor: it's a conclusion that has been drawn from societal factors. What factors are at play, why does society have those factors, and whether those factors are a good basis for the ethical system are the key questions that you need to answer.
No one is asking what society thinks
We are asking what you think and why you use the terms you use and why you have the preconceptions you have
O I misread disresgrd
I always understood ethics as the field that developed ethical frameworks and meta-ethics as the field evaluating the construction of ethical frameworks. But I didn't get very into ethics, so is that a false distinction?
because the arguments are unconvincing to me. maybe i can psychoanalyze myself to find further reasons but that is really hard. i thought about morality for a while then gave up. i dont know how to answer questions with the word should in them that do not already assume a moral principle.