(October 22, 2018 at 12:30 pm)robvalue Wrote: The problem is that "wrong" / "immoral" means absolutely nothing at all (scientifically) without a non-circular definition. Once you’ve made that definition, you’ve moved away from morality itself, and into the study of behaviour and consequences under specific goals. You’re then talking about achieving and enacting certain stated ethics, according to the vision of a person or group of people.
It’s the equivocation between the defined "wrong" and the general "wrong" that leads to mistakes I often see.
Yeah, well put.
Subjective morality is easy-- this is what we think right now.
It seems that every single attempt to establish objective morality is really a convoluted begging of the question, or simply of conflation between definition and discovery.
1) Define morality in a certain way
2) Demonstrate that morality as you've defined it is either objective, or has objective components.
The obvious problem is that morality itself is an abstract term, and even its definition is an act of the whims of agency.
