RE: If Life is Meaningless Anyway, then What's Wrong with Religion?
September 24, 2016 at 11:18 am
(This post was last modified: September 24, 2016 at 11:19 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Oh, I believe in objective morality in one sense: but I don't believe it in another sense.
I believe in epistemically objective morality once something like "mitigating suffering is moral" has been defined to be moral. But I don't believe in ontologically objective morality because it is completely meaningless. If absolute morals "exist" (whatever that would mean) that say "murdering is moral" that wouldn't actually make it moral. If whatever god says is moral is moral and god says kill everyone and cause as much suffering as possible... that won't make it moral, and in fact, if it is already agreed upon a reasonable premise such as "mitigating suffering is moral" or at the very least "not causing needless suffering is immoral" then it is epistemically objectively immoral to do what god says in the same sense that it is unhealthy to eat poisonous food provided that "not poisoning ourselves" is part of our definition of health.
Once we agree on reasonable premises such as "needless suffering is immoral" then we can at least in principle be objective about that even if we cannot in practice.
Sure, there will always be the contrary people who say "I don't think causing needless suffering on purpose is immoral at all" but those are the same people who would say "personally I don't think not poisoning onself should have anything to do with what we call health" if it were not so readily agreed upon (and hopefully reasonable agreements about morality can be agreed upon in future too like with health.,.. when people agree that causing needless suffering is immoral just as much as needlessly poisoning oneself is immoral then that's a big step in moral progress).
Just as I believe in epistemologically objective morality but not ontologically objective morality I'm similar with free will: I believe in compatabilist free will but not incompatabilist free will. Although I think calling compatabilist free will "free wilL" is actually misleading and unhelpful.
So yes I take this approach often, I de-equivocate the different senses of something because many people conflate them.
I believe in epistemically objective morality once something like "mitigating suffering is moral" has been defined to be moral. But I don't believe in ontologically objective morality because it is completely meaningless. If absolute morals "exist" (whatever that would mean) that say "murdering is moral" that wouldn't actually make it moral. If whatever god says is moral is moral and god says kill everyone and cause as much suffering as possible... that won't make it moral, and in fact, if it is already agreed upon a reasonable premise such as "mitigating suffering is moral" or at the very least "not causing needless suffering is immoral" then it is epistemically objectively immoral to do what god says in the same sense that it is unhealthy to eat poisonous food provided that "not poisoning ourselves" is part of our definition of health.
Once we agree on reasonable premises such as "needless suffering is immoral" then we can at least in principle be objective about that even if we cannot in practice.
Sure, there will always be the contrary people who say "I don't think causing needless suffering on purpose is immoral at all" but those are the same people who would say "personally I don't think not poisoning onself should have anything to do with what we call health" if it were not so readily agreed upon (and hopefully reasonable agreements about morality can be agreed upon in future too like with health.,.. when people agree that causing needless suffering is immoral just as much as needlessly poisoning oneself is immoral then that's a big step in moral progress).
Just as I believe in epistemologically objective morality but not ontologically objective morality I'm similar with free will: I believe in compatabilist free will but not incompatabilist free will. Although I think calling compatabilist free will "free wilL" is actually misleading and unhelpful.
So yes I take this approach often, I de-equivocate the different senses of something because many people conflate them.
