RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
July 13, 2017 at 10:40 am
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2017 at 10:49 am by The Grand Nudger.)
I've opined on this in thread, but I strongly suspect that your idea of what an objective morality is has been colored by centuries of christer bullshit. An objective morality -must- take into account competing moral facts of a matter. Grey areas.
Theft is wrong, in my hypothetical objective morality, because it causes harm. Theft when starving still causes harm, but the harm caused by the theft of a loaf of bread is objectively lesser than the harm caused by starvation. In a field of suboptimal choices - steal a loaf of bread or starve my family, one seeks to choose the option of lesser harm. The least harmful, among sub-optimal decisions. Just because there is an objective moral standard..doesn;t mean that we will always have choices congruent with it's adherence.
Note that in the hypothetical, both examples of theft are still wrong, but without a reference to conflicting objective moral facts of a matter..we would be at a loss to explain why we considered one less shitty than the other - and any morality than flaty requires no theft ever for any reason is a morality that, itself, becomes the cause of harm. The thief, for his part, will still be punished for his theft..but only insomuch as he has lived to -be- punished for it.
You're conflating moral absolutism, with moral objectivism...just as Steve has, repeatedly, in every "timeless and unchanging" line of tripe.
Theft is wrong, in my hypothetical objective morality, because it causes harm. Theft when starving still causes harm, but the harm caused by the theft of a loaf of bread is objectively lesser than the harm caused by starvation. In a field of suboptimal choices - steal a loaf of bread or starve my family, one seeks to choose the option of lesser harm. The least harmful, among sub-optimal decisions. Just because there is an objective moral standard..doesn;t mean that we will always have choices congruent with it's adherence.
Note that in the hypothetical, both examples of theft are still wrong, but without a reference to conflicting objective moral facts of a matter..we would be at a loss to explain why we considered one less shitty than the other - and any morality than flaty requires no theft ever for any reason is a morality that, itself, becomes the cause of harm. The thief, for his part, will still be punished for his theft..but only insomuch as he has lived to -be- punished for it.
You're conflating moral absolutism, with moral objectivism...just as Steve has, repeatedly, in every "timeless and unchanging" line of tripe.
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!
