RE: Any Nihilists here?
August 23, 2023 at 2:58 am
(This post was last modified: August 23, 2023 at 3:06 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Motivation is personal. Maybe you do want to cause harm - but to an objectivist, a subjective justification for harm falls flat.
As I told you before, I'm a value pluralist. I think we're talking about more than just harm (or just help) when we make moral utterances. Feel free to add other things in there. We'll consider each candidate objectively. I use harm because it's simple..because we're all familiar with it. Because we use it in our everyday discussions about right and wrong. All of it using objectivist propositions, ofc.
As before, if pouring boiling water on a geriatrics labia isn't even one of the things we're talking about when we discuss Bad Things™ - then IDK what would be. To be blunt, this entire line of objection is absurd from the other end. Arguing for the sake of arguing, hoping a hole comes up - to no end and in a not entirely credible manner.
I can help you skip past this part. There isn't a hole. Moral realism is valid even if it isn't true. It's the standard position of moral academia. That we're not just mouthing empty phrases, we're trying to communicate something. That it's possible to get any fact-alike statement right or wrong, that at least some moral statements are fact alike, and so we can get what we're trying to communicate right and wrong.
As I told you before, I'm a value pluralist. I think we're talking about more than just harm (or just help) when we make moral utterances. Feel free to add other things in there. We'll consider each candidate objectively. I use harm because it's simple..because we're all familiar with it. Because we use it in our everyday discussions about right and wrong. All of it using objectivist propositions, ofc.
As before, if pouring boiling water on a geriatrics labia isn't even one of the things we're talking about when we discuss Bad Things™ - then IDK what would be. To be blunt, this entire line of objection is absurd from the other end. Arguing for the sake of arguing, hoping a hole comes up - to no end and in a not entirely credible manner.
I can help you skip past this part. There isn't a hole. Moral realism is valid even if it isn't true. It's the standard position of moral academia. That we're not just mouthing empty phrases, we're trying to communicate something. That it's possible to get any fact-alike statement right or wrong, that at least some moral statements are fact alike, and so we can get what we're trying to communicate right and wrong.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
