RE: Subjective Morality?
November 1, 2018 at 12:44 am
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2018 at 12:44 am by bennyboy.)
(October 31, 2018 at 7:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Well, first off, an argument based on some hypothetical "semantic level" is pathetically ridiculous. But more substantively, I noted in the original post that responding to the phenomenological differences isn't definitive, as the phenomenology of numbers is also different from that of perception, yet no one in their right mind would argue that numbers are necessarily subjective due to that difference. Likewise that's not a sufficient argument against the objectivity of morals, and note, it isn't the moral feelings and intuitions which are claimed to be objective, but rather the things they refer to, the moral reality itself. Your arguments simply aren't a successful refutation of the points I made.
Numbers can be non-arbitrarily represented by putting forward a thing, then another, and calling that number of things by a name, "one" or "two." If someone would like to clearly lay out objective morals, then they are free to do so.
DLJ's way of explaining it is good. Supposed objective "moral facts" are also facts about any other idea you'd like to apply to the real world. That's because they aren't moral facts, but just facts which one subjects to a moral treatment.
I can pretty easily give examples of subjective morals-- all of them, really, since mores are ideas, and since they vary greatly among individuals. But would you care to demonstrate that any particular more is objective?