RE: morality is subjective and people don't have free will
May 16, 2017 at 2:02 pm
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2017 at 2:06 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
It's as objective as science. All the arguments made against a science of morality can be made against a science of health.
And no, it's ontological objectivity that is absurd. The idea that morals exist "out there"... apart from our subjectivity. But epistemic objective morality makes sense. The idea that there are right and wrong answers in principle to increasing and decreasing what we all value and care about: i.e. well being and suffering. That's analogous to the idea that there are right and wrong answers in principle to increasing and decreasing what's good and bad for our health.
Ontologically subjective, but still epistemically objective.
It's an epistemically objective fact that oxygen is good for the ontological subjectivity of all mammals.
And no, it's ontological objectivity that is absurd. The idea that morals exist "out there"... apart from our subjectivity. But epistemic objective morality makes sense. The idea that there are right and wrong answers in principle to increasing and decreasing what we all value and care about: i.e. well being and suffering. That's analogous to the idea that there are right and wrong answers in principle to increasing and decreasing what's good and bad for our health.
(May 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm)Aroura Wrote: Also, I can test for the existence of something (harm), but assigning en emotional value to it is what makes it subjective.
Ontologically subjective, but still epistemically objective.
Quote: I can objectively say that oxygen molecules exist. Adding that Oxygen is good because mammals breath it, is subjective.
It's an epistemically objective fact that oxygen is good for the ontological subjectivity of all mammals.
