(October 28, 2018 at 4:41 am)Khemikal Wrote: Even if we concede that moral facts actually refer to people's opinions and judgements (rather than some mind independent property of x) - not all moral assessments are created equal. Hilariously, we think that..because we don't think that the plant watering guy is on-point with the relationship between his predicate and properties of x accurately identified.
How many times are you going to say "we think" in attempting to demonstrate that morality is objective?
You've trotted out a list of things that people generally consider immoral. That, I would contend, is because they are people, and there's a lot of overlap among people in their feelings and ideas about things. You haven't considered the moral positions of bats or Volgons.
If a computer decided that X should be done (given some goal) and Y should not be done, would you call that a moral position? I wouldn't. This is because the computer doesn't have feelings about things-- it cannot be offended, or angered, or frightened.
My position is super simple. Mores are a mediation among feelings, ideas, and environmental factors, but they exist only as ideas. Fortunately, there's a word for that.
