RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
July 12, 2017 at 12:51 pm
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2017 at 1:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I think that people often oversell the mystery of the mind in order to manufacture ambiguity about some other thing or concept. There is, for example..very little in whatever mystery there is of mind that leads to ambiguity in an objective morality based upon harm. Similarly, I think that we do know is suffoicient to comment upon reality, in that if things were some other way - hidden from us, no amount of additional knowledge -within- that bubble would lead to a cogent comment on what it -outside- that bubble, what may lie beyond that veil, as it were.
Ultimately, -our- reality will always lie within that bubble, for better or for worse, even if there is some exterior in a meaningful..rather than semantic, way. If we ought to be agnostic about what is within by reference to what -may be- without..we may as well be agnostic about the sun rising in the morning. The concept of knowledge, about moral facts of any matter or anything else, becomes incoherent, when we insist upon impossible qualifying standards, or refer to the incompleteness of our knowledge. There is no logical requirement of full knowledge, in the first place.
As an example - would you insist that there is some reason for agnosticism...that it is "sensible" to withhold judgement on any proposed fact that harm...in this reality, is harmful? Will we learn something today, or tomorrow, or 100 years in the future about our minds....that would alter that assessment? In that same vein, is there something that we will learn about mind that will make these logically competing human claims about godhead any less self-contradictory? Do we not already know enough -about those things- to rule them out definitively and authoritatively?
Ultimately, -our- reality will always lie within that bubble, for better or for worse, even if there is some exterior in a meaningful..rather than semantic, way. If we ought to be agnostic about what is within by reference to what -may be- without..we may as well be agnostic about the sun rising in the morning. The concept of knowledge, about moral facts of any matter or anything else, becomes incoherent, when we insist upon impossible qualifying standards, or refer to the incompleteness of our knowledge. There is no logical requirement of full knowledge, in the first place.
As an example - would you insist that there is some reason for agnosticism...that it is "sensible" to withhold judgement on any proposed fact that harm...in this reality, is harmful? Will we learn something today, or tomorrow, or 100 years in the future about our minds....that would alter that assessment? In that same vein, is there something that we will learn about mind that will make these logically competing human claims about godhead any less self-contradictory? Do we not already know enough -about those things- to rule them out definitively and authoritatively?
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!
