>>833958>No need to "force" me. Just provide a logical proof that any rational agent should want to be a "moral agent" as defined by your framework.Okay, you said you accepted the definition of morality yet now you are asking evidence for why you should want to be moral which as I stated is a different question. A moral agent is someone who holds a belief than makes a choice in the real world.
If you are a dog who sits on the couch because your owner told you too and you obeyed without any reason than you are not a moral agent. You not caring either way about transgender people means you make no moral choice.
>By asking you questions that you can't answer?By you tap dancing to avoid the fact that you have no moral reason to not be kind to transgender people (or any other group.)
>It's not that I have no opinion, it's that we are discussing yours at the moment, and you're not doing a very good job logically justifying it.So which is it; do you have no opinion on the subject or can you prove that enjoying the deaths of transgender people is moral?
>That's a non-sequitur. Prove that it's impossible for the rest of society to do at least as good or better unless trannies are doing well.The transgender people in your society do worse so by definition it is not moral. I do not think you understand ethics which makes you think the main subject we are discussing is somehow a non-sequitur.
It is like asking "Who cares if we care about Jews?" Well, no one cares as long as you are not taking immoral moves to take their freedoms away. You can fill this in for any arbitrary group you wish.
>Which doesn't mean much, because you're unable to explain why any rational agent should care about being "moral" as defined by your framework.Because making moral choices helps the people in your society do better overall. Once again you seem to think morality means something different yet are unable to offer your own alliterative.
