RE: Subjective Morality?
October 23, 2018 at 1:04 am
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2018 at 1:11 am by bennyboy.)
Why would it be that in a subjective system, nothing that we discover really matters? I'm a product of my environment, and I'm part of it. In fact, I could probably best view myself as a constructive wave-- an interaction of very many cross-currents that manifest as someone with my face and ideas. When something happens to me, then it is another cross-current slapping me in my face-- what I am is re-defined.
I can't accept that criterion, which I think begs the question-- if it's true that "in a legitimately subjective system. . . nothing that we discover really matters," then there's no debate, because you are talking about some kind of immortal archetypal Benjamin, rather than the real, dynamic, flow-of-consciousness one. Perhaps archetypes can't change, by definition, but subjective agents can and do, and they do so based on external influences.
But forming ideas ABOUT objective facts is not the same as a moral system BEING objectively factual.
That's why I coined, and frequently use, the word "truth-in-context." There may or may not be a really real truth out there in the ether somewhere, but so far, I've not seen any method by which we can extract it with any certainty. What we can do, however, is establish truth in context.
Rape, for example, may not ultimately be wrong. Maybe suffering magi-specially sends energy to the center of the Universe, and is required to sustain it. Maybe pan-dimensional godlike voices echo through eternity, weaving themselves with screams in a tapestry that allows the Universe to arrive at the answer 42. Who knows?
But in the context of 21st-century America, I'd say it's a fact that rape is not generally acceptable: there are laws about it, movements about it, people wear ribbons about it. It's pretty clear.
I can't accept that criterion, which I think begs the question-- if it's true that "in a legitimately subjective system. . . nothing that we discover really matters," then there's no debate, because you are talking about some kind of immortal archetypal Benjamin, rather than the real, dynamic, flow-of-consciousness one. Perhaps archetypes can't change, by definition, but subjective agents can and do, and they do so based on external influences.
But forming ideas ABOUT objective facts is not the same as a moral system BEING objectively factual.
(October 22, 2018 at 8:55 pm)Khemikal Wrote: All terms are fundamentally abstract. We are abstraction engines that utilize a common language for transfer. This may be a problem for moral facts - but if so (or when so) it is equally a problem for fact, in general.
That's why I coined, and frequently use, the word "truth-in-context." There may or may not be a really real truth out there in the ether somewhere, but so far, I've not seen any method by which we can extract it with any certainty. What we can do, however, is establish truth in context.
Rape, for example, may not ultimately be wrong. Maybe suffering magi-specially sends energy to the center of the Universe, and is required to sustain it. Maybe pan-dimensional godlike voices echo through eternity, weaving themselves with screams in a tapestry that allows the Universe to arrive at the answer 42. Who knows?
But in the context of 21st-century America, I'd say it's a fact that rape is not generally acceptable: there are laws about it, movements about it, people wear ribbons about it. It's pretty clear.
