Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Then you turn around and make a logical argument where you can not show that the premise is true. So when it comes to something like the value of human life you can't even get off the ground logically if we follow your standard.
I agree that that my arguments about the meta-nature of morality are inductive ones. No question about it. I can frame some deductive ones if you wish, but I will be no more able to show the premises to be true than you are, leaving us at basically the same place: nice sound arguments that cannot be shown to be valid (i.e., have true conclusions). That's why I do not attempt to do so. The exercise is, IMO, somewhat pointless.
Meanwhile, we remain where we have always been - which is part of what convinces me that morality is genuinely relative/subjective: no one has ever been able to frame an argument against the position that doesn't reduce to an objection that relative/subjective morality cannot exist (or must be bad) because it's not absolute/objective. I find that form of argument content-free. Since how humans moralize is demonstrably relative and subjective to themselves (as it would be for any sentient being) and an absolute/objective moral framework cannot be shown to exist and multiple competing variations exist, I conclude that morality is naturally relative/subjective. It's what we do. It's what we have always done. It conforms to the observed reality.
Meanwhile, we remain where we have always been - which is part of what convinces me that morality is genuinely relative/subjective: no one has ever been able to frame an argument against the position that doesn't reduce to an objection that relative/subjective morality cannot exist (or must be bad) because it's not absolute/objective. I find that form of argument content-free. Since how humans moralize is demonstrably relative and subjective to themselves (as it would be for any sentient being) and an absolute/objective moral framework cannot be shown to exist and multiple competing variations exist, I conclude that morality is naturally relative/subjective. It's what we do. It's what we have always done. It conforms to the observed reality.
Comment