(August 11, 2019 at 9:45 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:(August 11, 2019 at 9:17 am)Acrobat Wrote: Let's think of that for a second.
Person A subscribe to a particular moral theory like your own, and has a definition of good and bad in mind.
Person B lacks any particular moral theory, and has no particular definition of good and bad in mind, and finds in undefinable.
Both person A and person B recognize "torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong".
Do you think person A unlike person B ran this question through the formula of their particular moral theory, and derived that it's "bad" as a result?
Or would you agree with me that Person A and Person B recognized that this is wrong, by the same basis, regardless of whatever moral theory they subscribed to? That if we took scans of their brains, we'd likely see the question processed through a similar pathway?
If person A unlike Person B has a definition of Good in mind, has a well articulated moral theory, it's attachment to the recognition here, is done after the fact, attached after the recognition.
How did person B recognize that torturing innocent babies just for is wrong, if he has no real definition of wrongness, no particular moral theory he subscribes too? How does a 3 month old recognize that the actions of the helper are good, but the hinderer are not, when he has yet to acquire a language let alone definitions?
The prevailing elements of such things as the Holocaust, is that it's built of delusions, dishonesty, and lies, not a difference in subjective taste, like the Nazis just liked Country Music, and we liked Hip Hop.
How do we show dishonest people the truth? Well that's easy, the same way we've done with Trump, and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist.
Why is it morally wrong to torture a baby for fun, Acrobat?
Because it’s hateful.
Which is probably a bit accurate than suggesting it’s recognized as wrong, because of the impact such actions have on a societies well being.
