RE: What would be the harm?
November 30, 2018 at 4:22 pm
(This post was last modified: November 30, 2018 at 4:42 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(November 30, 2018 at 4:15 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: No, it does not seem like an objective appraisal because it is only bad in that we want to survive for biologically rooted reasons.Except that "the good" can actually involve our deaths. Other than this direct and apparent contradiction between moral systems and survival interests...sure...you nailed it.
Quote:If we don't care about survival, then reducing our chances of survival is no longer bad. You seem to still be under the illusion that things can be bad for reasons that aren't a result of our biological imperatives, an example of which you've yet to present.Starting to be a case of you asking, receiving, and asking again.
Quote:I'm probably going to demur on this discussion because you seem to be spinning your wheels over the same bad arguments, and I have other pressing matters, not the least of which is scolding Drich for his dishonesty and such sometime later today. I will try to pick this up again after I have expedited more pressing concerns.No worries, you know I'm always around for these sorts of parties.
While you're off dealing with those things, however, consider this. Moral ontology, the status of some moral proposition, itself..and moral compulsion, not the same thing.
The subjectivity of my compulsions (and biological imperatives are ethically subjective), my motivations...true or false, will not have a one for one transaction with the other. You have been commenting on moral agents, not moral systems. Moral objectivity does not contend that we are thoroughly objective moral agents. Pretty much contends the exact opposite, and..largely, because our moral apparatus is evolved and imperfect.
That's why realism makes reference to things like super rationality - acknowledging that this ability is well beyond any human being.
So, for example, while it's certainly true that we could have evolved some other way, so that we don;t give a shit about harm...that wouldn't actually do anything to the sufficiency of harm as an objective moral metric. The one doesn't follow from the other. Those other things, evolved some other way, would simply not care. Harm would still be harm and it would still be..at least a part...what you and I are talking about (doomed penis based objections aside, lol). This, if you ask a realist, anyway, because harm is mind independent, whereas whether or not you care about harm....mind dependent. If we had evolved to be even more subjective agents than we already are, then we would be even more subjective agents than we already are.
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!
