RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
March 13, 2017 at 10:08 pm
(This post was last modified: March 13, 2017 at 10:11 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 13, 2017 at 9:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote: That's right. I've discussed that already, I think.It's important to know which were using so that we can see whether or not the statements made about objective morality follow from them, or only apply to an objective morality if it is determined to be judged by the metrics of selective advantage, is all. Is there a problem with objective morality, in that regard, or is it a problem with moral opportunism -called- objective morality?
Quote:I've never claimed that my definition of moral facts or moral objectivity was useful. I doubt it, since we can't see the future. However, there may be some utility in considering things this way: not digging in because I'm "right," but considering the long-term implications of an action. A good example would be bombing wedding to get bad guys. You might be "right" in getting the bad guys, but the long term effect will be some deeply angry people and possible retribution.It's utility is without question. It's downright definitional. Moral opportunism by selective advantage can't help be anything -but- useful, I'm just not sure it's moral. We can see enough of the future to keep our heads above water.
Getting the bad guys and bombing a wedding to get the bad guys aren't the same thing. One might be good, the other bad.
Quote:I'd say implicit in views about murder is a social instinct. All our goals, basically, are expressions of love, fear, and so on. However, when ideas are skewed by false beliefs, for example in an eternal soul which mediates the effects of murder (read: crusades, torture, drone strikes), then I'd argue that (though we can't know for sure), we'd suspect that they've wandered pretty far from the moral facts.If you accept moral facts (even with the priviso that we can;t know for sure..because honestly, what can we know for sure, eh?) then you don't have -too- much of a problem with objectivity in morality. Maybe the issues you have with it don't stem from it's objectivity.....but from the metrics by which you determined it?
It may be a social instinct, but does it correlate to a moral fact, and what moral facts are those, if any?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
