Your comment does the same thing you’re critiquing OOP for doing. What gives you the authority to claim as fact that there exists no objective morality?
Edit: tbc, I also don’t believe in object morality, but what I have issue with is the apparent contradiction you’ve made
Lots of hella smart people have made this topic their entire life for literally thousands of years, and the debates are still ongoing. An individual’s observations mean little
Deductions based on subjective information got you here. Or did you objectively observe (through, for example, objective experimentation) that there is no objective morality?
That’s what therapygary was trying to tell you, but not sure why they expected your subjective experience to realize the contradiction it itself is based on, lol.
Sure, objective morality is the belief that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of individual opinions or cultural beliefs, that moral truths exist independently and can be universally recognized. The second question I haven’t the slightest idea, but it would be interesting to find out.
The world would look the same way it does now with or without objective morality. Objective morality is just the idea that moral truths exist independent of individual beliefs. E.g., that raping babies is an inherently immoral thing regardless of an individual’s feelings about it
Again though, I personally don’t believe this. I just won’t claim to know that there is no objective morality. No one can know that, the same way no one can know that there’s no god, or anything else unfalsifiable
The best argument I’ve heard for it, from a moral philosophy professor and personal friend of mine, is (paraphrasing) “I know for a fact that genocide is inherently wrong, and I’m not open to debating that. It’s just true.”
Hey, check this out, you might find it interesting. From Parenti’s Contrary Notions:
If what passes for objectivity is little more than a culturally defined self-confirming symbolic environment, and if real objectivity—whatever that might be—is unattainable, then it would seem that we are left in the grip of a subjectivism in which one paradigm is about as reliable (or unreliable) as another. And we are faced with the unhappy conclusion that the search for social truth involves little more than choosing from a variety of illusory symbolic configurations. As David Hume argued over two centuries ago, the problem of what constitutes reality in our images can never be resolved since our images can only be compared with other images and never with reality itself.
In the same way as free will, both that and subjective morality are things I have never been able to see any good definition of. And something that isn’t well defined can’t exist.
Your comment does the same thing you’re critiquing OOP for doing. What gives you the authority to claim as fact that there exists no objective morality?
Edit: tbc, I also don’t believe in object morality, but what I have issue with is the apparent contradiction you’ve made
The fact that I can observe people have different moralities.
Lots of hella smart people have made this topic their entire life for literally thousands of years, and the debates are still ongoing. An individual’s observations mean little
An appeal to majority, authority, or tradition (your comment might be all 3) does not supersede my own reason and experience.
You mean your subjective experience?
Exactly. All experience is subjective, and so is morality.
Deductions based on subjective information got you here. Or did you objectively observe (through, for example, objective experimentation) that there is no objective morality?
That’s what therapygary was trying to tell you, but not sure why they expected your subjective experience to realize the contradiction it itself is based on, lol.
Can you define objective morality for me please? What exactly would the world look like if there was objective morality?
Sure, objective morality is the belief that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of individual opinions or cultural beliefs, that moral truths exist independently and can be universally recognized. The second question I haven’t the slightest idea, but it would be interesting to find out.
The world would look the same way it does now with or without objective morality. Objective morality is just the idea that moral truths exist independent of individual beliefs. E.g., that raping babies is an inherently immoral thing regardless of an individual’s feelings about it
Again though, I personally don’t believe this. I just won’t claim to know that there is no objective morality. No one can know that, the same way no one can know that there’s no god, or anything else unfalsifiable
The best argument I’ve heard for it, from a moral philosophy professor and personal friend of mine, is (paraphrasing) “I know for a fact that genocide is inherently wrong, and I’m not open to debating that. It’s just true.”
Hey, check this out, you might find it interesting. From Parenti’s Contrary Notions:
Your reasoning is bad- I was just trying to point it out gently without being too explicit about calling you out for the arrogant moron you are.
I’m happy for you to point out the flaw in my reasoning, so far all you’ve done is criticise me.
In the same way as free will, both that and subjective morality are things I have never been able to see any good definition of. And something that isn’t well defined can’t exist.
People before gravity was well defined:
I’m an amoralist and a determinist; I only disagree with you on the basis of claiming these things as fact
It’s more like, “people before smorklank was well defined”
“Well, but smorklank exists, or it doesn’t, what do you think?”