(August 15, 2019 at 9:02 pm)Belaqua Wrote:(August 15, 2019 at 8:31 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Moore doesn't really clarify what he meant by "natural", and there are good counter answers to his open question argument. You're free to look them up online as they're readily available via Google.
Me personally, once you get to something like harm is bad, then there need not be any further questions. Harm is pretty much a bad thing morally. At some point you're going to have to accept that harm is bad, that it's a very fair axiom, that I need not be so stubborn that we need to first really really prove harm is bad. Are you an idealist by any chance? A solipsist?
The word "harm" contains the meaning "bad." Just as "murder" means "bad killing." There can't be good harm or good murder.
This leaves unanswered the question of why we think it's bad.
I still think that "cutting the head off a baby will kill it" and "killing it is bad" are different kinds of questions.
I'm not a solipsist. That's a silly question.
This has gotten boring, as people are talking past each other.
The solipsist question is rhetorical. You take for granted that other people have minds, you can't prove that they do, though. And you need not to, unless this is somehow relevant to whatever challenge you're trying to meet.
As an individual act, cutting off a baby's head and thus killing it is harmful to its wellbeing, and as such it is bad. We can accept this as such, or we can continue to be stubborn and argue "but is it really?"
