RE: Subjective Morality?
November 10, 2018 at 11:39 am
(This post was last modified: November 10, 2018 at 11:56 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Who's conflating anything? A realist is simply telling you that the facts which comprise their moral positions are exactly like cat facts. Their oughts, are like everyone else's oughts.
Facts, combined with an evaluative premise.
............?
Do we both agree that cats and harm exist? Do we both agree that cats and harm are mind independent? You can object to my use of harm as (at least one of) my evaluative premises...but if you're objecting to the existence of harm and harmful things...then there really can't be any productive discussion between us. If you think that cats are mind independent in some way that harm isn't..then what you require.... is an argument to -that- effect.
If we both agree that cats and harm both exist and that this existence is a mind independent fact (iow, it doesn't actually matter whether I, personally, believe it) and you would instead object to my use of harm as a valid evaluative metric or premise..then you need an argument for that.
You'll have to explain why, and how, harm isn't a valid metric for moral propositions.
(full disclosure, it would be an academic endeavour at best, since I'm also a moral pluralist and can derive my moral conclusions by working..instead of from the bottom as I have been..from the top by reference to consequence or utility..or even deontological values. Like a biologist, for example...I don't think that any single moral fact provides a full description of morality anymore than any single biological fact provides a full description of biology.)
Facts, combined with an evaluative premise.
............?
Do we both agree that cats and harm exist? Do we both agree that cats and harm are mind independent? You can object to my use of harm as (at least one of) my evaluative premises...but if you're objecting to the existence of harm and harmful things...then there really can't be any productive discussion between us. If you think that cats are mind independent in some way that harm isn't..then what you require.... is an argument to -that- effect.
If we both agree that cats and harm both exist and that this existence is a mind independent fact (iow, it doesn't actually matter whether I, personally, believe it) and you would instead object to my use of harm as a valid evaluative metric or premise..then you need an argument for that.
You'll have to explain why, and how, harm isn't a valid metric for moral propositions.
(full disclosure, it would be an academic endeavour at best, since I'm also a moral pluralist and can derive my moral conclusions by working..instead of from the bottom as I have been..from the top by reference to consequence or utility..or even deontological values. Like a biologist, for example...I don't think that any single moral fact provides a full description of morality anymore than any single biological fact provides a full description of biology.)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
