Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

How you're resorting to calling the most mundane and trivial use of terms magic - in the hopes that negative associations might do what you failed to accomplish logically.

I think it's pretty obvious why I'm saying that. It's not turtles all the way down-- at some point, any moral proposition worth anything is dependent on subjective valuation. Calling it "magic" is derisively ironic, in case you missed that-- because it is clearly NOT an amazing coincidence that no matter how many objective moral facts you think you can dig up, at the root it's always going to be rooted in someone caring about state A vs. state B.

Why?  I think..if you want to understand the basis for proving this or that in any system..you can figure it out on your own.  I think that in contradiction to the evidence of our conversations, btw.  You don't actually seem like the kind of person who can get this shit right - but I still think you can for reasons I could not give a 500 page report on.  So...all the time I've devoted over many threads to helping you understand this simple thing.  Help me understand a simple thing.  Why?  Why do you persist in objections to x after any specific objection y is thoroughly deconstructed?

I might be a moral objectivist, but I'm an interpersonal subjectivist.  I want to know why you're so compelled to fuck this up, as a fact of you, the subject in question.  Why, for example, are you compelled to make the statement that harm and bad are limited to things people don't like, calling it horseshit, when you know that people do apprehend things that they do like..as bad?  That's not even a moral question, it's a descriptive fact - and yet.....?

Yes, they acknowledge it as bad because they've been taught that. I didn't say YOU have to have feelings about things in order to form a moral view, just that someone does. A total pyschopath can know that killing babies is considered bad. But at some point, someone had to have negative feelings about killing babies, and then verbalize "Hey-- killing babies is bad." But ultimately, if nobody gave a shit about babies, we'd be following them around with rifles killing them "just for fun."

I'm as baffled by your behavior as you claim to be by mine. Is there some objection to thinking that mores arrive out of people's instinctual dislike of certain behaviors or outcomes? Why, or how, would it be otherwise?