RE: What would be the harm?
December 1, 2018 at 5:15 pm
(This post was last modified: December 1, 2018 at 5:27 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Then you have a problem with brute facts. Well, okay, and? Good luck fleshing out any of your objections without a reference to one.
: shrugs :
If, however, you actually have no disagreement to the existence of harm and it's status as a measurable and thus objective thing, then you have no valid objection to a harm based objectivity as moral theorists are discussing it. Yes, you also have desires. Yes, those desires are compelling. Yes, those desires can be in concordance with harm based objectivity and they may not be. Yes, those desires and that harm can be in concordance with instrumental goods like survival benefit...and sometimes they may not be.
What's the problem...wheres the sand?
(It's because it's not satisfying, lol, imo. You were looking for more. Moral objectivity is kindof a letdown, but that doesn't make it less than or other than objective. If you want to cogently object, and this is another schtick of Harris' object at the very beginning..because if you don't...well, tough luck. Everything follows from there...even if what follows is entirely less than as awesome as we hope for it to be. That's either the weakness or the strength of arguments like his, depending on how satisfying a person finds their conclusions.)
: shrugs :
If, however, you actually have no disagreement to the existence of harm and it's status as a measurable and thus objective thing, then you have no valid objection to a harm based objectivity as moral theorists are discussing it. Yes, you also have desires. Yes, those desires are compelling. Yes, those desires can be in concordance with harm based objectivity and they may not be. Yes, those desires and that harm can be in concordance with instrumental goods like survival benefit...and sometimes they may not be.
What's the problem...wheres the sand?
(It's because it's not satisfying, lol, imo. You were looking for more. Moral objectivity is kindof a letdown, but that doesn't make it less than or other than objective. If you want to cogently object, and this is another schtick of Harris' object at the very beginning..because if you don't...well, tough luck. Everything follows from there...even if what follows is entirely less than as awesome as we hope for it to be. That's either the weakness or the strength of arguments like his, depending on how satisfying a person finds their conclusions.)
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!
