RE: What would be the harm?
December 1, 2018 at 6:19 pm
(This post was last modified: December 1, 2018 at 6:41 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
That is the contention of an intuitivist argument, Jorg. To then respond that this is circular because they're saying that harm is bad because "blah blah blah" is straw. It's not about misrepresenting you, I'm pointing out that you've -profoundly- misrepresented them. Your arguments...your arguments that harm is bad because x y and z may in fact be circular, but they are yours.
Follow?
That's not what they saying.
And, sure, brute facts do need to be agreed upon. Do you disagree with Harris formation of the brute fact of harm? That the greatest suffering for the greatest number of things, if bad means anything, is bad? I'm sure that you can appreciate the absurd position that disagreement with this very sensible statement will put you in. This, alone, is enough to establish that harm is morally relevant...and since harm at least -can be- objectively quantified..you would have to put yourself into further absurdity to disagree with it's validity as an objective metric. As an evaluative premise. You further contend that there is no agreement of harm..and that's a claim, and an assertion (so there's no hiding behind "well, I'm not claiming anything".,.yes, yes you are)..and it would take alot of discussion to unpack that one...but at least, for the moment, consider that you may be wrong there as well.
It's still unsatisfying. Harris argument does not give me, or you, the warm fuzzies and fill us with certainty in the accuracy of our moral propositions. Oh well.
That still leaves you with the easiest avenue of criticism, though. Our agency. Our spotty ability to see harm, or care when we do. This is exactly where you went, though you confused our agency or compulsion for the foundations of objective justification.
-all of these things, btw, known quantities in moral theory, and acknowledged by realists.
You haven't exactly cracked the nut and disproved moral objectivity or even mounted a credible offense against it.....with any of your comments here, to me, on AF.com. Neither Harris nor myself being the most skillful advocates. Try Kagan.
Follow?
That's not what they saying.
And, sure, brute facts do need to be agreed upon. Do you disagree with Harris formation of the brute fact of harm? That the greatest suffering for the greatest number of things, if bad means anything, is bad? I'm sure that you can appreciate the absurd position that disagreement with this very sensible statement will put you in. This, alone, is enough to establish that harm is morally relevant...and since harm at least -can be- objectively quantified..you would have to put yourself into further absurdity to disagree with it's validity as an objective metric. As an evaluative premise. You further contend that there is no agreement of harm..and that's a claim, and an assertion (so there's no hiding behind "well, I'm not claiming anything".,.yes, yes you are)..and it would take alot of discussion to unpack that one...but at least, for the moment, consider that you may be wrong there as well.
It's still unsatisfying. Harris argument does not give me, or you, the warm fuzzies and fill us with certainty in the accuracy of our moral propositions. Oh well.
That still leaves you with the easiest avenue of criticism, though. Our agency. Our spotty ability to see harm, or care when we do. This is exactly where you went, though you confused our agency or compulsion for the foundations of objective justification.
-all of these things, btw, known quantities in moral theory, and acknowledged by realists.
You haven't exactly cracked the nut and disproved moral objectivity or even mounted a credible offense against it.....with any of your comments here, to me, on AF.com. Neither Harris nor myself being the most skillful advocates. Try Kagan.
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!
