RE: What would be the harm?
November 30, 2018 at 5:07 pm
(This post was last modified: November 30, 2018 at 5:08 pm by bennyboy.)
(November 30, 2018 at 4:04 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I keep informing you that ethical objectivity seeks to remove evolutionary imperatives as justification not on the grounds that they can never be in alignment with each other, but because we understand that what is natural is not necessarily right. So, yes, you can have such an interest or pressure that aligns with what is good, but it isn't the imperative or your interest in it that -makes- it good.
Consider these two statements.
Things which reduce our chances for survival are commonly bad.
Things are bad because they reduce our chances for survival.
Not the same, yeah? The later, falls to the naturalistic fallacy. The former, well..you tell me, does it seem like an objective appraisal that's true regardless of whether someone else sees it or cares?
tbh, to me, it's all just ambiguous semantics.
You say things "are" bad or good, but I think it's more accurate to say that badness is in the eye of the beholder, if not of individual men, then of mankind.
First, I'd want to know what you mean by "bad," if it's not simply something that we have negative emotions toward. What does the word even mean, and why do you feel justified using it in an objective sense at all?
