An a priori argument is when the subject matter, or predicate, of the argument is only assumed, supposed, or believed, but is presented as fact. This means the entire argument is illogical, from the premise, no matter how logical the format. So, if you were to say something that does exist is either bad, or good, you must remember that morality does not exist as apart of the universe and is only made up in peoples head, so it is subjective, and should be stated subjectively, unless able to be identified within a larger subject with well defined guidelines so an objective identification can be reached. When you say, Jake is bad. Is is a third person singular present of be... for something to be, it must exist, for it to exist it must be objectively, or as apart of reality. Since there is no determined subject matter where Jake is being spoken about, or within, you are speaking about Jake in a general sense, or generally. In a general sense nothing is either good or bad, it simple is what it is. To claim that it is either is a lie, because it is not either, ever, generally. If you were to say, Jake is bad at tying his shoes, we would then have to come to some type of identification of what it means to be good at tying shoes. The moral of the story: MORALITY IS MADE UP IN YOUR HEAD, or better: it seems to be more common that morality is made up in the head of the people that told you what to think-- its not real. (and your argument sucks, logically)
Posted on: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:56:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015