(August 22, 2023 at 11:10 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That would be a subjectivist moral system...like the commands of some silly god...so...no? The whole point of an objective moral statement is that you read it and check it for exactly what it says on the tin. If I say something is harmful and it isn't - then I'm wrong. There's no point in trying to pull teeth here. It's a non novel claim.
But you wouldn't be checking to see if something is harmful. You'd be checking to see if it is wrong.
You have defined harm as wrong. But why? It seems you just intuit that causing unjust harm is wrong. But that's not the same kind of knowledge as measuring physical external reality.
Basically, why is causing harm wrong?
