(December 31, 2015 at 3:26 am)robvalue Wrote: Well, we can either assume we have some sort of real choice to make and discuss it, or else the word "should" becomes entirely meaningless. Almost all discussion about humans becomes meaningless.
We may indeed be making no choices of course. In which case this is just what I have to type.
But it's not been demonstrated we have no choices, so saying "no choices therefor no morality" isn't valid in my opinion.
Again, I'm not argueing for morality being anything other than a subjective value judgement by a thinking agent. It's not some mystical inherent property of matter or of an action. The value judgement is still happening, whether or not I have any control over the outcome. Of course it will all be coming "from me" and be based on me, that's just describing the process.
In the end, I think we're just quibbling over 'value judgement.' Allegedly, morality requires you calling it good vs. evil, right vs. wrong. Are those two the same? Would you equate wrong with evil? I just use evil instead of bad, because Evil is a 'moral' world, while bad/wrong have different meanings, some I'd associate with morality, some I wouldn't. So even if you don't like the world evil, pretend it means morally wrong/bad.
I don't see the need to involve good and evil to make my judgements.
In the end, I think our language and perspectives are so imprecise it's crazy hard to be sure what anyone is saying for sure.
