RE: Morality
January 20, 2019 at 11:13 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2019 at 11:20 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
There's an interesting sidline in the quoted text above. The notion of a "good person" as apathetic is unsatisfactory, but not for any discernible reason. If a persons apathy lead them, through lack of interest, to not doing The Bad Things(tms) then it's unclear how they could be anything other than a good person, even if it's the weakest form of a "good person" we can think of. We like to see people take affirmative steps towards the good rather than blunder into it through indifference or accident, but there's no wholly compelling argument as to why an indifferent or accidentally good person is not good, or less good..than an intentional or engaged one. Is the fool less blessed than the magus?
Additionally, while the q above wasn't directed at me, I'll answer from a realists pov - fully expecting that the religious answer will be garbage, lol.
The difference in moralities between fully modern humans (the sum total of the relativist position) can be accounted for by difference in empirical, rather than moral, understanding. In effect, we don't disagree on the moral facts, we disagree on the empirical facts with factual moral relevance. In this understanding, any person from any time could be made to understand, internally, why some x is right or wrong (or taken to be so) regardless of whether or not it was considered right or wrong in their own time (or, even if x was completely unknown)..supposing we provide them with the relevant empirical facts. It's no different than moving from one country (and their laws) to another (and theirs) - but through time, rather than geography.
The phrase "harm is bad", for example... is so broad as to encompass a wide range of potential actions and effects. You won't find a human culture without that precept (or it;s analog) - though we routinely find (and are, ourselves) cultures who do not appreciate or understand what harm they do. Non natural realists insist that this is what is being referred to in moral discussions, and that potential difference of empirical fact is not directly relevant or informative as regards hypothetical differences of moral fact. This, in short, is why differences of moral opinion are not seen to be challenging to moral realism in the slightest. We disagree about everything.
Additionally, while the q above wasn't directed at me, I'll answer from a realists pov - fully expecting that the religious answer will be garbage, lol.
The difference in moralities between fully modern humans (the sum total of the relativist position) can be accounted for by difference in empirical, rather than moral, understanding. In effect, we don't disagree on the moral facts, we disagree on the empirical facts with factual moral relevance. In this understanding, any person from any time could be made to understand, internally, why some x is right or wrong (or taken to be so) regardless of whether or not it was considered right or wrong in their own time (or, even if x was completely unknown)..supposing we provide them with the relevant empirical facts. It's no different than moving from one country (and their laws) to another (and theirs) - but through time, rather than geography.
The phrase "harm is bad", for example... is so broad as to encompass a wide range of potential actions and effects. You won't find a human culture without that precept (or it;s analog) - though we routinely find (and are, ourselves) cultures who do not appreciate or understand what harm they do. Non natural realists insist that this is what is being referred to in moral discussions, and that potential difference of empirical fact is not directly relevant or informative as regards hypothetical differences of moral fact. This, in short, is why differences of moral opinion are not seen to be challenging to moral realism in the slightest. We disagree about everything.
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!
