RE: what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?
July 4, 2014 at 4:57 am
(July 4, 2014 at 4:42 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I wonder what systems of logic and inference rules you've been looking at, because those have most definitely changed over time. Logic isn't one thing, it's a multiplicity of axiomatic systems. There are commonalities amongst various logics but the views and applications of these have changed throughout the ages, and then one can say the same of morality. Logics tend to (but not always) accept the law of non-contradiction, and moral systems to accept that murder is wrong.
Yes, those changes are called corrections based on things newly discovered in nature. Not because of changes in individual, cultural, or historical beliefs.
Moral rules are not based in nature but in human opinion.
You say that stealing is wrong, but what observation in nature leads you to assert this as objectively wrong?
Murder is always wrong because murder, by definition, is wrong. You probably mean to say "killing" instead of "murder". In that case, no, moral systems do not always accept killing to be wrong.
Quote:How is the nature of morality "dependent on hat you believe about it"? Under moral realism, that's false by definition. And yes, it is a good counter argument because you're confusing what people once thought about what they did with the actual fact of the matter about what they did.
You're assuming there is this "actual fact" that provides an objective basis for why slavery is wrong.
Under moral subjectivism, the distinction between moral ontology and epistemology is a red herring. Also, Occam's razor does not support extra unnecessary features/entities, so moral subjectivism would be more reasonable.
