Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

Being harmed, and being harmful to x, are not the same thing - as the qualifier would indicate, and sometimes harming one thing is beneficial to another. I'm not too worried about whether you're willing to do this or that - no more so here than in context of moral motivation. The question is whether or not there's anything specifically or egregiously inaccurate in realist statements. Moral statements, sure..since we've been droning on forever - but others as well.,=..since there's no clear difference between a realist moral statement, and any other realist contention. How do we or how can we prove what we know, not, do we care about what we might be able to prove, or, are we willing to accept that a thing can be known.

That out of the way. Who said it didn't have a negative connotation in this usage? That's what you mentioned being motivated to avoid for reasons of what would probably be shame or discomfort. We do alot of negative things, don't you think? In this way, or in my way..if you prefer...the list is simply longer than yours because I have no motivation reject that content. I'm motivated to accurately communicate it, instead. If it helps, not every item of moral import carries moral desert in a full moral consideration. Just as factual circumstances can be complicated, so too can moral circumstances in a factual system. So, you may in fact be responsible for all of that harm you suspect you may be, and are motivated by that realization to avoid as a way of protecting your self image (or sanity, lol)...but that still might not lead, factually, to calling you a monster. Perhaps you only think that it would because your moral understanding from this pov is unpracticed and unrepresentatively simplistic? Or because you, as an individual, have a particularly strong response to doing harm or worrying that you do harm. You're a vegetarian, yes? Seems like you might be more finely attuned to the bad you seek to avoid than..say..me. I'll kill an animal for fun, not just food.

We reach the point where the question is more like, how can we deal with what we may know? How do we sleep at night if we're doing so much hinky shit? Pretty well, actually. Almost like we were made for it, as apex predators on a world full of obligate predation, lol. Can you think of ways that a snowflake melting, even if it's sensible to say that this destroys the snowflake, that heat harms a snowflake, might carry no moral desert? Perhaps because no moral agent is involved? This obviously isn't the case with agw, where much snow (and alot else) is put in danger, destroyed, harmed, etc. You seem to think the presence of a specific subject (or type of subject) is important to moral consideration in some way - so, that tracks, right? Here's a list of shit you could be held morally accountable for - that could be praiseworthy or condemnation worthy. Burning logs is definitely in there because the act can or does contain the attributes or consequences of the content referred to as moral - you have an act of moral import, and a moral agent. Quick questions..did you do it in a fireplace to keep your family warm - or did you set a wildfire? Are you 30, or 3? Was there something else you could have done to satisfy that goal without incurring those attributes or consequences? Different answers to this question change how we view the situation, and sensibly so, as there are objective differences between fireplaces and wildfires, between three year olds and adults.