Subjective Morality?

[bennyboy]

What's healthy about eating, eh?  Nevertheless, if we're talking about health...how/what/when we eat is relevant.  In exactly the same way harm is a relevant metric for what is wrong.  Why would there need to be a skydaddy?  If there is harm, and harm is at least one of the things that we are referring to..what would the presence of a god add to that, and what would it's absence subtract?

Because, Khem, there are one of two conditions
1) Harm is intrinsically wrong
2) We dislike harm and call it wrong


The idea of "harm" means that there's a right or wrong state of things. What is particularly right about survival of the species, or of the planet, or of the Universe itself? By what standard is this rightness or wrongness established?

Ultimately, someone has to say, "I like this, and I don't like that. And I like this so much that I will act to protect it, and I dislike that so much that I will act to prevent or eliminate it."

---

It's not.  It's a statement.

It's a statement of belief. "I believe I'm looking at a cat." or "I believe that what I'm looking at is a cat." or (if you like) "I believe the cat is there."

I'm not so sure that's true. It assumes some archetypal cat-truth ontology that is either true or false. But "I'm looking at a cat" is true if you're having that experience, whether it's in a dream, in the Matrix, or in a material monist Universe.

Where we go wrong is in conflating contexts. If I see a dream cat, and think it's walking down Main Street, I'm still very much seeing a cat. But nobody else is likely to say that they see it.