No. I never said person for a reason.

Show me a source claiming a sperm is a human.

Show me one saying human feces is human.

You cannot because you made it up.

I can show sources that state a fetus is both human and alive.

You said resembling a human. It's not that at all. There ARE human. Living and Human.

That can be extremely difficult in todays social climate, The mental aspect that is.

Thank you for making my point. Cool.

No, biologists would classify both as human. Both are “of or belong to the genus homo”. Human sperm, fertilized human embryos, and human feces are all considered human in a sense. But that also isn’t relevant in any moral framework. What you’re probably trying to say is that a fetus is a “person”. Which would be an entity deserving of a right to life. That’s not a biology question and not the easiest thing to justify.

That's why I get my moral principles inspected before I sign the docs.

I agree. Factive predicts are interpretive.

In Freud’s terminology what you’re referring to is suppression, which is a conscious decision to compartmentalize in order to achieve specific goals. The psychological profile of Neitzsche would have given Freud a lot to work with, and I don’t think there are many affinities. Their approach to libido, for example, is completely opposite.

a fetus is a human. Fetus is just a life stage like toddler, infant, elderly, teenager..

Read a biology book

In what way is value non-imaginary? Value exists only in the mind, it is something imagined. Same with morality, or moral evil/good. Or are you using a different definition of imaginary?

A fetus is a living human according to accepted biology.

A sperm isnt even human

>"Must" and "require" presupposes a first principle position, which assumes agreement, right?

It's simpler than that. "Must" (i.e. "imperatives") and "require" (i.e. "necessity" or "need") affect nothing directly outside the imagination hence they are imaginary things.

​

In practice: If I am out in the desert I can believe I "require" water or "must" find water (based on the possibility of me dying soon without ingesting water) but reality is simply that I may soon die of thirst without having found water, the universe doesn't care.

What’s meant by this? Or rather, why is this being said in this context? “Moreover, he argues that virtue ethics is not compatible with rule making; “

[deleted]

I think I can see your position. Will you check my understanding and let me know if we're on the same page. "Must" and "require" presupposes a first principle position, which assumes agreement, right?
Thanks for your feedback.

Unless the previous owner lied about the firmness of the foundation and the hot weather causes the clay foundation to shrink and produce cracks throughout the whole house resulting in a total renovation of the foundation.

The saying "rules were made to be broken" could shed some additional insight on the topic. Rules and moral principles are a manifestation of language, and language changes over time and space. So do rules, whether legal or theological (though the latter may be more subtle). Rules can be thought of as a manifestation of the times, or at least, that's the context in which they would be most useful and relavent. Rules that do not adapt to the times and contexts quickly become poor policy, leading to degeneration, exploitation, and chaos. Having systems in place to verify the validity of rules across time and space and update them as is necessary to align to particular goals makes for productive regulation that avoids pushing towards the extremes or breaking the system that is in place. In essence, navigating life better is a process that cannot be codified and set indefinitely. The process must evolve with the new and verified data. "Cleaning your room" is a good starting point if you don't know where to start, but it's never going to be enough as you evolve as a human being, and the rules you choose to live by can help pave a navigable path before you in a space with combinatorially explosive possibilities.

[deleted]

The ultimate goal is that no mind suffers or causes another to suffer if reasonably avoidable. The pathway there is generally through the attempt and practice or unconditional love, hope and forgiveness.

Unless it is rooted in a firm foundation.

I disagree with the terms "require" and "must" (since those are myth) but other than that I agree fully.

I see Rush lyrics and it's an automatic upvote

RIP Neil

[deleted]

All I would say to that is; proceed with caution before tearing down any boundaries. Sometimes they’re there for reasons we don’t completely understand but are necessary all the same.

Some fences are misplaced, it might be better to break through or walk around them.