Saying OM does not exist but then saying "moral act X is wrong according to me" does not make sense.
Suppose you and i grab a tennis racket and ball. We go to a back street with no lines on the street.
You hit the ball, as soon as it bounces i scream "out". Naturally, you will say, "out according to what", i will say "according to me it is out".
You will then say "how can it be out, there is no line we never agreed on anything". I will say "according to me it is out".
So, in this example, what am i saying. There is nothing on the road, no lines, we never agreed on anything, how can i say the ball is out?
Well, i must have some imaginary line in my head. This line does not exist in reality, it is just something i made up in my head that does not exist in reality.
In this case, i am suffering from a delusion, ie, i am acting in accordance to something that does not exist in reality.
If OM does not exist, ie, moral facts, then claiming a moral act as wrong is the same as the tennis example. You are suffering from a delusion.
Now you might say, well, what if you drew a line and you both agreed where the line should start and stop, all of a sudden, the line exists in reality. Now we are talking. However, the line that you and i draw has no reference to reality. What do i mean by this. Well, if you and i drew a line, it is just something we both made up from our heads and we are playing according to this construct.
It is no different to you and i saying, lets pretend you and i are batman and superman. We can act as if we are batman and superman, but in reality we are not. We are just living according to some delusion that we made up. A mental construct.
Thats all morality is if you want to say if OM does not exist, but want to live as if moral rights and wrongs exist.
If you say morality is subjective, according to me rape is wrong is just another way of saying, i am suffering from a delusion.
Suppose you and i grab a tennis racket and ball. We go to a back street with no lines on the street.
You hit the ball, as soon as it bounces i scream "out". Naturally, you will say, "out according to what", i will say "according to me it is out".
You will then say "how can it be out, there is no line we never agreed on anything". I will say "according to me it is out".
So, in this example, what am i saying. There is nothing on the road, no lines, we never agreed on anything, how can i say the ball is out?
Well, i must have some imaginary line in my head. This line does not exist in reality, it is just something i made up in my head that does not exist in reality.
In this case, i am suffering from a delusion, ie, i am acting in accordance to something that does not exist in reality.
If OM does not exist, ie, moral facts, then claiming a moral act as wrong is the same as the tennis example. You are suffering from a delusion.
Now you might say, well, what if you drew a line and you both agreed where the line should start and stop, all of a sudden, the line exists in reality. Now we are talking. However, the line that you and i draw has no reference to reality. What do i mean by this. Well, if you and i drew a line, it is just something we both made up from our heads and we are playing according to this construct.
It is no different to you and i saying, lets pretend you and i are batman and superman. We can act as if we are batman and superman, but in reality we are not. We are just living according to some delusion that we made up. A mental construct.
Thats all morality is if you want to say if OM does not exist, but want to live as if moral rights and wrongs exist.
If you say morality is subjective, according to me rape is wrong is just another way of saying, i am suffering from a delusion.
