RE: Do you wish there's a god?
April 9, 2019 at 12:45 pm
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2019 at 12:49 pm by Alan V.)
(April 9, 2019 at 9:42 am)Acrobat Wrote:(April 9, 2019 at 9:36 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: Please explain to me how objective morality based on relative human nature (rather than, say, the interests of ants) is "convoluted and contradictory nonsense."
The "ought" problem is only a problem if you don't recognize it as based on if-then statements. For example: "IF you want a civil society, THEN you ought to police murders." In other words, relative morality -- relative to human thriving.
You mean relative to those who hold the goal/ought to do what's best for human thriving?
If I don't hold such a goal, then would you say I have no such moral oughts here? That the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun might be true for you, but not for me.
Or in other words for your objective morality to work, it relies on people to subscribe to a subjective goal like doing what's best for human thriving?
You didn't explain how objective morality based on relative human interests (rather than, say, the interests of ants) is "convoluted and contradictory nonsense." You just restated that you don't see the difference between subjective and objective but relative morality.
In other words, killing babies has nothing at all to do with human thriving (objective but relative morality), no matter how much some warped individual may enjoy it (subjective morality). Remember the "if-then" statement? If you want human thriving, then you ought to do such-and-such. That is relative morality.
I expect you will really address the question next time, instead of just side-stepping it.