(October 5, 2018 at 9:27 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I tend to agree. However, this statement appeals to objective morality; in order to say that we have a better understanding in compared to a moral ideal.
Thank you. I have never claimed to be a moral subjectivist, I take human survival and thriving (and we need the rest of the planet to do well in order to have those things) as my basic moral axiom. That said, there's 'more than one way to skin a cat' and there may be more than one way to optimize human survival and thriving. So the moral ideal that I think we're 'arcing towards' might not be the only one that would work (and probably no ideal possibility is actually achievable in any case, there will always be a range of suboptimal choices), and that's not even taking into account what technology may be able to achieve (and what new moral conundrums it will introduce).
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.