Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

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.

Yes.  It's obvious.  Lazy, and sloppy.

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?

If I don't have to have feelings about things to form a moral view then they can't be necessarily subjective.  Weird how one little comment can lead to so much, eh?  

No one has to have negative feelings about anything for things to be bad, in fact.  I know that you have some other view.  I know that you're wedded to that view.  That shouldn't mean...particularly in a subjectivist world....that you have some diehard necessity to reject another's equally subjectively true veiwpoint.

Nope.  You're a realist, making incessant realist statements, without the courage of your asserted convictions.  Apparently, additionally....one that never took the time or had the care to learn the foundations of their own factual appraisals - hence the OPQ.  How can we should be scratched to how can I.

That's a lot of talk, but you have not yet demonstrated that anything is bad, or why.  Harming mountains, you say, is bad.  Why is this bad?  In what sense is inanimate material being harmed?  In what sense is this bad?

Predicted answer: blah blah blah you miss the point blah blah that's not what realism is blah blah
Desired answer: I think X is bad because Y