RE: What would be the harm?
December 1, 2018 at 12:13 pm
(This post was last modified: December 1, 2018 at 12:20 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The trouble with that assertion is that a realists bad aren't based on goals, even if their teleology is. Teleology, for it's part, can't be based on anything but goals..simple matter of definition. Though, that a natural teleology is at least sensible makes the claim that teleology is necessarily subjective a tenuous one. We know that it can be, we know that our teleology is, again..meaningfully, but we can;t really rule out that our own teleology could match some natural teleology that is mind independent.
While this might seem seductive at first, aligning our own moral teleology to a natural teleology would be, as previously pointed out...unwise...from an ethical standpoint
As to your point, "if bad is necessarrily subjective"; The proposition harris offered is that harm -is- bad. Is harm necessarrily subjective? To continue with the ramifications of what would be if bad was necessarrily subjective you will have to maintain that harm is necessarrily subjective. Not our ability to see it, not whether or not we care about it. Not our teleology. Harm.
Can you not measure the depth of a wound and lay out further complications? Can you not note the pain of surgery, or the continuing ill effects on health? Can you not point to the rubble of a burnt down trailer? Can we not have the family cry into a cup and measure the volume of their tears? etc etc etc. Is it true that there are things considered harmful that are..meaningfully, subjective? Sure. Does that make harm necessarily subjective? Absolutely not.
It is far easier to criticize harris (or anyone elses) evaluative premises (or evaluative agency) than it is to impugn the objectivity of harm as a metric.
While this might seem seductive at first, aligning our own moral teleology to a natural teleology would be, as previously pointed out...unwise...from an ethical standpoint
As to your point, "if bad is necessarrily subjective"; The proposition harris offered is that harm -is- bad. Is harm necessarrily subjective? To continue with the ramifications of what would be if bad was necessarrily subjective you will have to maintain that harm is necessarrily subjective. Not our ability to see it, not whether or not we care about it. Not our teleology. Harm.
Can you not measure the depth of a wound and lay out further complications? Can you not note the pain of surgery, or the continuing ill effects on health? Can you not point to the rubble of a burnt down trailer? Can we not have the family cry into a cup and measure the volume of their tears? etc etc etc. Is it true that there are things considered harmful that are..meaningfully, subjective? Sure. Does that make harm necessarily subjective? Absolutely not.
It is far easier to criticize harris (or anyone elses) evaluative premises (or evaluative agency) than it is to impugn the objectivity of harm as a metric.
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!
