Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
As for the article, I actually read it. It is well written, but I came away with the same impression I usually have: a lot of effort made to provide an objective justification that simply cannot be substantiated. There is no way to go from an objective "fact about the matter" to an "ought" that produces a moral requirement. When we hold something to be precious, that "ought" is a natural consequence of the value we place on that thing. That many moral principles relate to interactions and others is simply a reflection of the value we individually place on community/society, and a recognition of the potential that the actions of others have to protect/nurture or attack/diminish these things we value.
If you think otherwise, then I (again) submit a simple test: take ANY moral position you hold and demonstrate how it is an objectively-based moral truth WITHOUT appeal to any subjectively selected basis. I have yet to have anyone actually do this. The silence is telling....
ETA: As with Adrift - you might want to more carefully distinguish between "not agreeing" and "not understanding."
Comment