Which is more important? Being logically correct or morally correct?
Depends on if you're making a decision or finding truth. Duh bro inb4 Spooks
How can one be one without the other?
>>1292569
This
In technical philosophy there is no difference.
>>1292546
People are logically sound most of the time. Their differences are derived from differing premises which are dogmatically asserted. Two people can be logically right in their reasoning regards to a certain subject and still reach vastly differing conclusions.
>>1292569
This is pretty much the only answer.
The dichotomy of morallity and reason is the product of humans inabillity to produce objectively sound conclusions through his subjective nature. By dissecting both of them you are basically admitting that you are influenced by your own preferences.
>>1292810
This really looks like a shitpost.
Your answer completely misses the point.
If you want to throw in your:
>theoretically you can never be right, because all you have are assumptions which never cease to have the burden of proof on them XD
you can start your own thread I guess.
If you derive your conclusion from a dogma which is logically incorrect in itself, your conclusion is aswell. Maybe you should start doing some mathematics in your free time.
Also
>Fate
Really shit taste in anime there, reevaluate your life.
>>1293819
> humans inabillity to produce objectively sound conclusions through his subjective nature
Seems retarded to me if you remember that you can produce objective truth in science and such while in the end all of your observation are based on subjective sensory input. Subjective and objective division is kind of bullshit excuse from that point.
>>1292546
Being morally correct.
If someone is logically correct and not morally correct, then their point is redundant, even if they claim that their logical point is beneficial. Before we ask "What benefits society", we must first ask "What is society".
We have to take a moral angle before we take a logical angle, because nothing without morals is ever justified.
>>1293982
not always tho.specially in politics. if a government rules by feelings rather than logic, that government will fall to ruins. example look at germany and whats happening atm if you dictate by morality
>>1292569
This
Two totally divergent moral systems can still be "correct" if they descend logically from dogmatic, irrational axioms, which as a leap of faith are basically necessary in every system
Dumb question.
Logically speaking, you should choose to be logical. However, by being logical you realize the importance of morals, and will come to the conclusion that they are very important to be upheld in all forms of society.
>>1292546
What do you mean? I can't really imagine any situation in which being logically correct will make you morally incorrect, desu, unless you're telling people truths which will only harm them but then the problem isn't really with you "being" logically correct, is it?
Just saying logically correct things at inappropriate times.
I guess you could take an action that's logically correct in the sense that it's the most rational thing for you to do, because it best serves your own interests, but which is morally incorrect because it brings undue harm to others.
In that case I guess I'd say that taking logically correct actions is more important because nothing is more important than whatever benefits you the most. However, what people feel benefits them the most tends to be things that make them feel like they have good morals, so there's a lot of overlap obviously.
>>1292546
Morally. God matters more than people.
They are not mutually exclusive chucklefuck.
All of moral argumentation is based on logical validity and soundness.
There is no difference, the point is that you need to be correct, ethics are always finished with logic which is the accompanying feeling of satisfaction you get that augments your decision when you find your said decision to be true to your expectations of reality, but eventually your morals are made up of many different variables that also among other things include: instinctive drives, feelings, and intelligence,
these are all forces that define your sense of self, trying to quantify and decide which of these forces = more important is going against the very beauty of the art of ethics.
Morality is more opinion based, so it's better to be logically correct.
>>1292546
>morally correct
>>1292546
That's a bad translation; there was no such distinction between 'right' and 'correct'. Shirou can't school Archer on logic because Archer actually knows what he's talking about. And Shirou doesn't question Archer's 'righteousness' (seigi) because EMIYA is actually a goddamn superhero (seigi no mikata). Neither befits Shirou, a character motivated by feelings.
Shirou is saying "You're correct but that's all". He disagrees with the conclusions to Archer's argument. Saber basically condensed this shit with the parallel to herself.
/animepost
