RE: Good vs Evil
May 14, 2019 at 2:29 pm
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2019 at 2:40 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(May 14, 2019 at 2:23 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:Natural realism contends that moral x's are, likewise. That's all moral realism or objectivism is. The notion that there can be things about an object, which are true, to which moral statements are reducible and properly refer.(May 14, 2019 at 1:42 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: We make up every category and every word to describe it for any distinction under the sun. This does not demonstrate that the categories or their contents depend on people.
Every rose in the world would still be a rose if men weren't there to name them.
The thing we call natural evil is different from the thing we call moral evil. For specificity's sake, we use two terms to refer to those disparate categories of x. Just as you might use "cat" or "dog" instead of "animal" if you wanted me to feed one or the other. Unless roses, cats, and dogs are equally "totally dependent on the observer" we're going to have to figure out why moral x's are the special case. What is it that makes us cognitivists and realists when it comes to the first three, but not the other?
False equivalency.
Roses, dogs and cats are quantifiable physical things.
Quote:Good, evil, moral and natural are simply concepts - ideas - and totally dependent on an observer who can understand the concept.Apprehension depends on an observer. If you're discussing apprehension, you'd be commenting on descriptive moral subjectivity, which moral realists also accept to be self evident...but doesn't support the claims you've made about good and evil or their dependencies. Even if we were not here to apprehend them, earthquakes, a "natural evil" would still happen. If we were the only creatures that this planet ever produced which posessed a moral agency, then there would be no moral evil....until some creature with moral agency from some other planet showed up and did The Bad Things™, ofc, lol. In this way, moral evil depends on a moral agent - but not any particular moral agent, and not in the manner relevant to the positions of moral subjectivity or relativity( as opposed to their descriptive variants, above).
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!
