(August 13, 2019 at 7:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: It seems completely useless altogether to even talk about morality without respect to the well-being of beings, lol. Acro wants to make this distinction between the fact of what is physically good for people, and “The Good”. I mean, if we aren’t talking about what is good or not good for people, what are we even talking about? If there weren’t living things, there would be no need for moral systems at all.
The stuff he says comes off as all ad hoc to me, as with most theistic position out there.
For me, I always try to start from the bottom up. What can I observe, what can I deduce or infer most directly from what I can observe? Is this view, as it is, sufficient to address the concerns I had before? If yes, then it's a provisional yes for now, and until someone explains to me what is wrong with the view as it is, I'll stick to it as the best explanation thus far. If no, then I continue to move upwards until I find what is required to make it sufficiently reasonably true.
Or if it's too much for me to contemplate, I can just stick to fuck this, I'll go watch a movie instead.
