(December 7, 2017 at 2:09 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(December 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I don't understand Tizheruk's second sentence, but as for the first sentence, I don't see it as absurd. I don't necessarily fully agree with harm-based morality, but it is objective in the sense that if there is harm involved, then it's not a good thing. Harm, bad. No harm, not bad. Objective morality need not be grounded in a person, it can be grounded in concepts such as pain or harm. But I think harm-based system does pose a problem in that the perception of harm itself is subjective to the person upon which the supposed harmful action is being inflicted on.A misapprehension of harm based moralities. Harm based moral realism accepts that there are people who either fail to recognize that they are doing harm or do not think of what they are doing -as- harm. Their perception thereof is not what a harm based moral realism derives from. That -would- be a subjective morality. It works the other way as well...there are people who think that some x is harmful (homosex, lol)...but this perception is -also- not what a harm based moral realism derives from.
Let me look up moral realism then Ill get back to this thread.
