RE: One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.
November 7, 2017 at 11:34 am
(This post was last modified: November 7, 2017 at 11:40 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(November 7, 2017 at 11:21 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: IMO, after reading your post, it would seem that people are the primary source of "the universal consensus through all cultures and countries that certain things are wrong". Thus, if people ultimately acquire their morality via human interactions/teachings, then why can't humans be the objective basis for human morality (religious, non-religious, or whatever).Because human beings are necessarily subjective agents. That doesn't make it impossible for us to recognize or assess some portion of whatever objective basis there may be for morality, which might account for human morality having at least some persistent qualities, if there is such an objective basis......but it does present opportunity for error and rules us out as the objective basis thereof. Fundamanetally, we are subjects viewing x, is x an object, and what can be said about it if it is? Or, is x just an artifact of the subject, ourselves, which we project and then misapprehend -as- the object?
Quote:Also, since context plays a key factor in any effective ethical/moral system, then why is it problematic for there to be a subjective component to morality?None at all. There's a subjective component to objective morality regardless of how it's conceptualized, we're that subjective component. This is why objective moral theorists use concepts like "super-rationality", to account for and zero out human error that might otherwise contaminate the results of any objective moral calculation, insomuch as they can..as human beings themselves.
Quote:Regardless of the type of moral system that one adheres to, if the success of that system ultimately depends on the behavioral choices and actions of humans, then is it not logical for humans to own that system and tweak it as they continue to progress and evolve?Exactly. Whether a person thinks some thing x is objectively or subjectively wrong, the practical difference is nil. We write our laws, we enforce our norms. Supposing that morality were subjective..it is and would then still be possible to make objective statements regarding the subjective framework. That the statement "rape is wrong" (just using the thread example) is true can be true of both objective and subjective moral frameworks. Metamorality ftw.
@Pool
Yall got all the crayons and juiceboxes you need over there in the corner table? Just making sure you're set.
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!