(Yesterday at 2:28 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Imagine how ethicists must feel, lol. They get up there and educate and lecture and study and survey and they just don't know that everything they have to say about the subject is wrong, and obviously wrong, because it's all subjective.Is wrong the right word? If I claim to prefer red to any other colour, that is not wrong is it? It's objectively true, but it tells us nothing about red or any other colour beyond my subjective preference. I suppose we examine moral ideas because it matters to us, and therefore we think it worthwhile. It just may make life more tolerable, though of course it is not an objective truth that life should be more tolerable.
Quote:Moral objectivism is a non novel theory.though the competing moral theories have to deal with reality as well, they can't be entirely theoretical or else they'd be useless? Or I have missed the point? I must admit I am no closer to accepting that morality is objectively true, only that if we make a subjective claim about something, we are then able to make objectively true claims about how best to achieve it.
We think X is wrong.
Y causes X.
It follows then that if x is wrong, then y is also wrong.
The first assertion remains subjective. The second is an objective claim about reality. The conclusion is true only if we accept the initial subjective claim.
So I think the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles is true, unless someone can offer an example? As even though we do seem to have evolved such that certain behaviours are anathema to most of us, this doesn't make them objectively immoral, surely those are just instincts that natural selection has kept because it aided societal cohesion enough to provide a survival advantage.
