ProfessionalTeabagger

Valid compared to what? Compared to reality I guess.

In order to accept the argument my senses have to be valid.

Hi. Here's a link to a philospohical study by a professor of philosophy at the university of Cape Town. He argues that opponents of corporal punishment are wrong in saying it should never be inflicted on children. I share Stef's position on hitting children and I was maybe thinking about writing a response or making a video on this so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the folks here and I'd like to hear your thoughts. javascript:mctmp(0);"Corporal Punishment" by Davaid Benatar

We could also ask is violence immoral? The answer is no because violence can be used in self-defence. It's simialr to lying. If someone is trying to violate your privacy or seek information that is for malacious purposes then you are under no obligation to supply them with that info. If lying is the only way you can defend yourself or others then you can legitimately do it. Just as you have every right to respond with violence to aggressors you have every right to respond with lies. Lying is often a great alternative to violence. I'd like to put forward the phrase "The intitiation of lying". So if you lie to school children about, say, the nature of government (as most teachers do) then that is the initiation of lying and is wrong. If you lie to the government about how much tax you owe then that is not wrong. The latter is lying for legitimate self-defence. Someone tell me if that sounds silly.

If you don't think people use moral theories to justify lying, stealing, rape and murder as valid then you've never considered religion, taxation, imprisonment and war.

Sorry to hear you're in this desperate situation. Perhaps you might consider calling in the Sunday show.

You might want to watch one of Stef's latest videos "Ethics of capitalism". He mentions Kant's categorical imperative and the difference between that and upb becomes clear.