(August 17, 2017 at 11:23 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I didn't see any reason to offer any. You asked me where my schema began, I told you. In any case, there's no point in bickering with me about moral facts of the matter, since you wouldn't be disagreeing that there -are- moral facts of a matter, just..maybe, positing that my facts were the wrong facts or not those facts, etc etc etc.
No, a person valuing his own life for x wouldn't necessitate that he valued your life because you also satisfied those conditions x, unless he applied a rationally consistent valuation. Rational elaborations, like empathetic response, sometimes find themselves arbitrarily limited or not extended to all subjects to which they would, by their own descriptions, apply.
IOW, it doesn't always work, and people still make bad choices.
I have many reasons to conclude that you and I are existentially equal despite our vast disparities - those are my conditions x.
If we both agree that there are, in principle moral facts, then any dispute would only be an epistemological one given a common acknowledgment that values have some kind of ontological status. As for me, I have not seen a reasonable defense of value realism coming from atheists. On AF there seems to be a universal denial of nearly all kinds of realism in favor of nominalism. Correct me if I am wrong but based on prior conversations I took you for a nominalist/conceptualist. If that is not the case then I would be very much interested in how you could justify any kind of realism, including value realist, without making reference to transcendence.
