Yeah, I wasn't sure whether it would bc I was unclear on your point; can you clarify what you mean by intrinsic morals?

Intrinsic morals is the assertion that morals are a real feature of the world, and exist whether or not we percieve/believe them.

I don't read it that way

Intrinsic is a "to what" kind of word

Objective morality is a better way to say it imo

Morality can be intrinsic without being objective

*intrinsic to the subject*

Well intrinsic is used to mean it's a feature of something objective of our perception

You can't have intrinsic morals without objectivity

I disagree

I mean, morality can be intrinsic to the self; to some you cease to be you when your morality changes in certain ways

Or intrinsic to the holder of a character trait

Well that isn't what is referred to when we say intrinsic morality

I understand that the phrase has a distinct definition

But my point is it isn't equal to intrinsic + morality

I never said it was at all

So, my version fo the phrase is also valid

And I do think considering intrinsic subjective ethics is worthwhile

If I define fish to mean pants I can say I'm wearing fish but that isn't very conducive to a conversation

But that's very different from what I'm doing

I'm taking the meaning of the two words, to make a more literal version of the phrase

That's simply not what is done in philosophy, you take the meaning of it and then address that

You were trying to understand what I was saying and you change it to mean something else

U lads wanna continue arguing or can I post a religion qotd

Well, I'm taking the meaning of the words and addressing them, rather than just the meaning of the phrase

Telling me I can't use intrinsic literally, is kinda weird

That's just bad motives then

You address the meaning of the words rather than a literal denotation of it

I'm not arguing with your usage, I'm defending my usage of the component words to form a similiar phrase of distinct meaning.

You were arguing my usage actually

And pointing out how the phrase as you used it might mislead some people, and be ambiguous to others, the philosophic common term or not

<@&588707615643795456> Daily Question ✝

- Should the state actively support a religion? Should States have the right to engage in missionary work?

Yes

Its actually more ambiguous to use it your way primarina

The state should guarantee freedom of religion

Etymology also includes the usage of it historically, and that simply isn't it

Eoppa, non literal readings are inherently ambiguous as words / phrases have literal meanings

@GlobalDelete @Deleted User explain why

No

Primarina, read a book on linguistics

I accept your usage as a figure of speach