You can’t reach a conclusion without value judgments – but you can do your best to create a transparent framework before attempting to reach a conclusion. Starting with a conclusion is a lot more dangerous IMO 😉

Which means…

(Ka-flucking-blooey!)

I think it dangerous if you kid yourself you can work in some type of vacuum like that, Matt.

A rock doesn’t have sentience ba-boom

So, a rock is immoral?

Boom.

That is all.

You can only objectively view facts by putting passion to the side when doing analysis.

Again, any conclusion based on passionate rhetoric is a subset of the set of conclusions you get from dispassionate analysis – standing back from your emotions allows you to gain a greater appreciation for the assumptions that are being made.

No, tell me how passion or dispassion changes facts: right versus wrong? It doesn’t.

Perhaps trouble is you don’t believe in the right versus wrong bit. That amoral utilitarianism again 🙂 Noting the dictionary definition of amoral is neither moral nor immoral, but I would dispute that also: amoral is immorality by absence.

I have to respectfully disagree – remember that the conclusions drawn from passion are a subset of the conclusions you arrive from with dispassionate analysis. As a result, such analysis allows us to understand what assumption we are making when we rail for something specific! That is a great thing.

I keep quite a passionate blog.