Secular, naturalistic, this-worldly (an Epicurus, Spinoza & Philippa Foot love-child). Thoughts and critique, please.A précis on (an) 'objective (i.e. subject/pov-invariant) morality':
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/355166 — 180 Proof
Every person can just make up their own conception of what is right and wrong and the conception that wins is determined by power. — Ram
You mean they [transcendent realities] do exist? How do you know this? — JerseyFlight
I don't think you can possibly have objective morality from a secular framework. I think that the liberal, secular framework inherently leads to a sort of moral anarchism. Every person can just make up their own conception of what is right and wrong and the conception that wins is determined by power. This just leads towards humans becoming like animals.
How can there possibly be a secular framework for morality that isn't arbitrary?
I mean... all these secular attempts at creating a moral framework.... I think they're mostly just a thin smokescreen for the interests of the person propounding them.
If I'm wrong and I'm just a dumb, idiot person for thinking this way- where is this objective moral framework that is completely detached from anything religious or spiritual and doesn't seem to mysteriously uphold vested interests of narrow groups? — Ram
Elaborate. I don't see how this follows. Careful reading of my initial post shows that my position on ethics/morality is naturalistic, which doesn't negate or deny "the transcendent" but simply suggests that "transcendence" lacks any practical or explanatory role in any lived exercise-experience of moral agency.For philosophers to deny the transcendent is like for a chicken to support KFC. — Ram
I'm not going to bother with you — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.