RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
July 13, 2017 at 5:23 pm
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2017 at 5:29 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(July 13, 2017 at 5:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would not equate harm with immorality, or lack of harm with moral. Although it may be involved in a very basic guideline (I would agree, that you shouldn't seek to harm others for selfish reasons)Yes you would...in fact...I'd suggest that you would be incapable of -not- doing so.
Quote:As C.S. Lewis pointed out; someone who tries to trip me and fails is in the wrong, while someone who accidentally trips me is not. Your principle of harm would see to reverse this.Far be it from me to rebel against what the great moral theorist CL Lewis had to say on the matter.....I agree. A person who attempts to trip you and fails is oin the wrong. Why? Because he attempted to harm you. Someone who does so on accident is not...why, because he did -not- attempt to harm you. Why would my principle of harm reverse this...and don't you find it telling that you have just failed to escape harm in attempting to criticize the objective moral foundation of harm?
Quote: Does this harm extend to all living things?I don;t know, it -at least- extends to humans, so? I'm willing to entertain the notion - got a specific living thing in mind?
Quote: What about non-living things?Most likely not, at least in and of themselves. Kicking a rock isn't immoral. Kicking in my window, is.
Quote: If I destroy some thing of mine, is that immoral?Depends, does it cause harm? Are you destroying the cure for cancer, or yourself...perhaps something your family depends on?
Quote:And all of this, is describing what is moral (epistemology). However it doesn't answer the question of why anything is wrong, or why one ought not to do these things. So while I agree, that harm is objective (at least for the most part) and independent of the subject (I think some arguments could be made for psychological harm here), I still don't think that you understand the argument that is being made.Jesus, there you go again. What argument do you think is being made? What argument am I supposed to not understand? The argument you aren't making, or the argument that I'm not making? The phantom argument? How could my answer to that question, -why anything is wrong- be more explicit than "because it causes harm"....? Are you...somehow, under the impression that a full moral assessment of some x can both begin -and- end with an invocation of the axiom?
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!
