Your view makes sense only if you reject God. — Photios
However, it's completely laughable to talk about morality being in any sense independent from humans. — Judaka
I'm neither a theist nor idealist and yet I subscribe to "objective morality" (i.e. a form of ethical naturalism), so is that – am I – irrational or confused by your lights?Theists and idealists may believe in an objective morality (in theory) ... — Tom Storm
True. Subjects, however, strive to, and often do, correct their subjective biases, interpretations, beliefs ... with objective methods, maps, models. I think, even though objectivity is always constrained to some degree by subjectivity, subjectivity without some degree of objectivity is always either naive or delusional (or both).No one gets out of subjectivism.
I'm neither a theist nor idealist and yet I subscribe to "objective morality" (i.e. a form of ethical naturalism), so is that – am I – irrational or confused by your lights? — 180 Proof
From my post the "ethical naturalism" link ...How do you get objective morality? — Tom Storm
Are optimal (e.g.) health ... sustainability ... justice ... only "subjective"?But this foundational goal itself would be subjective, wouldn't it?
You've torched that strawman pretty good! :sweat:Your post has the punchline of deriving an ought from a promise that suffering people were forced into making because of a dependence on each other that we clearly don't have. — Judaka
That's like asking how jurisprudence is "morally commensurate with our human history of" crimes. Anyway, cite a single "morally justified unspeakable horror".How is your view of morality commensurate with our human history of morally justifying the unspeakable horrors we've inflicted on each other?
Ah yeah, finally, "the punchline" of your rant, Judaka: projection via argument from incredulity / ignorance. :roll:An opinion that reads for what it is; an ideal.
This kind of grouping is eusocial: basically a truce or implicit promise each suffering person is committed to, by her mere presence and having once had been a suffering child dependent on suffering adults — 180 Proof
Morality is objective because all suffering persons depend on one another to keep the implicit (eusocial) promise both to not harm one another and to help reduce each other's suffering whenever possible — 180 Proof
That's like asking how jurisprudence is "morally commensurate with our human history of" crimes. — 180 Proof
Anyway, cite a single "morally justified unspeakable horror". — 180 Proof
e.g. Social contract theory ...You can create an ought by having people be obliged to a promise made unknowingly and by simply being? — Judaka
Well, it surely ain't right to reject a non-trivial argument without countering it with a non-trivial argument. Unless, of course, you simply do not comprehend the argument ...What did I get wrong?
Yeah, maybe not, but here's the quote again from your post, Judaka:I didn't say morally commensurate
:shade:How is your view of morality commensurate with our human history of [ ... ] — Judaka
No doubt. And so my claim of your projection is well-founded: you reflexively reject what you say "confuses" – challenges – you and so refuse to patiently think things through.The notion that there are objective moral truths confuses me ... — Judaka
It was not "morally justified" by any soundly reasoned ethical (or legal) principles of the day. If, however, you really do not believe "The Final Solution" was nothing but an 'explosion' of nihilism (however 'rationalized' by the perpetrators et al e.g. Arendt's banality of evil), then explain, Judaka, which 'moral system' – not which ideology/theology – you believe "justified" this industrial mass murder: e.g. virtue ethics, utilitarianism, deontologism, emotivism, pragmatic ethics ... :chin:The Holocaust.
Well, it surely ain't right to reject a non-trivial argument without countering it with a non-trivial argument. Unless, of course, you simply do not comprehend the argument ... — 180 Proof
No doubt. And so my claim of your projection is well-founded: you reflexively reject what you say "confuses" – challenges – you and so refuse to patiently think through it. — 180 Proof
"The Final Solution" was nothing but an 'explosion' of nihilism (however 'rationalized' by the perpetrators et al e.g. Arendt's banality of evil), — 180 Proof
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.