[learc83]

>Or would you accept as answer "No, there's no reason to care about others in this situation"?

That's an acceptable answer. My next question is: "Why don't you believe it's wrong not to care about another's suffering?"

And you say: "There is no inherent right or wrong--self interest is the only arbiter of morality."

And we go back and forth until you get to a level where you've basically made an arbitrary assumption.

That assumption is an axiom that you base your world view on. The why that came before that discovery wasn't nonsense

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> That's an acceptable answer. My next question is: "Why don't you believe it's wrong not to care about another's suffering?"

First, that's a straw man. It's a straw man because they didn't say they didn't care about another's suffering, they said there might be no reason to care in that particular highly unrealistic scenario that you presented that was intentionally crafted so as to not have a reason to care.

Then, in so far as you refer only to your hypothetical scenario, the answer has already been given: Because there is no reason, or at least there is no reason that they are aware of. If you were asking them for justification as to why they aren't aware of any reasons, that's obviously a nonsensical question if you don't provide a reason for which they might be able to investigate how it came that they weren't aware of that reason.

> And we go back and forth until you get to a level where you've basically made an arbitrary assumption.

No, that's bullshit, and probably a whole load of equivocation to make the unreasonable seem equivalent to the reasonable.

[learc83]

>Strawman

It's not a strawman, it doesn't matter what the reason the person gave was. I'm not trying to make my hypothetical person supply the easiest answer to attack, I'm not even trying to attack their answer.

>No, that's bullshit, and probably a whole load of equivocation to make the unreasonable seem equivalent to the reasonable.

It's not possible to have beliefs that aren't based on assumptions. I guess you can think that's bullshit, but your belief doesn't make it so.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> It's not a strawman, it doesn't matter what the reason the person gave was. I'm not trying to make my hypothetical person supply the easiest answer to attack, I'm not even trying to attack them.

Well, maybe, that depends on which path of the equivocation we follow.

> It's not possible to have beliefs that aren't based on assumptions. I guess you can think that's bullshit, but your belief doesn't make it so.

Yeah, that's the equivocation I am talking about. You didn't say "you've made an assumption", you said "you've basically made an arbitrary assumption".

Let me guess what you are really trying to say:

"It is just an assumption that reality is real, therefore, if you think that that assumption is acceptable, you should also not have any objection to the assumption that god exists/gave us morals/some other unjustified supernatural claim."

Right?

It's not that there isn't an interpretation of what you wrote that is indeed true (kindof), it's just that that interpretation is irrelevant to the argument that you are trying to make, which relies on a different interpretation, which unfortunately is not true.

[learc83]

>Yeah, that's the equivocation I am talking about. You didn't say "you've made an assumption", you said "you've basically made an arbitrary assumption".

Arbitrary isn't the right word. Not self-evident is better.

>Right?

No, I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists.

>the argument that you are trying to make, which relies on a different interpretation, which unfortunately is not true.

You are having that argument with yourself, not me.

>unfortunately

I don't think I could write a more condescending, disingenuous statement if I tried.