(July 13, 2017 at 7:34 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(July 13, 2017 at 7:26 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote: Ok, so you say harm is the objective moral standard. I can see where you are going with this even if I'm not quite convinced yet. Just because the two of us agree on not harming people doesn't mean that something outside ourselves has objectively made it a moral standard. I still need to think about it some more.No, it doesn't, what makes it an objective standard, is it's independence from any given subject and ability to be demonstrated as such. What makes it a moral standard is it's fundamental relationship to moral statements. It's what we're talking about. Ergo, an objective moral standard. When we ask ourselves, "what is the moral fact of the matter" in some x...well, harm. Why is rape bad? Because it causes harm. Why is standing between a rapist and a victim good? Because it stops or preempts that very same harm.
The two of us agreeing is moral agreement, some asshole elsewhere disagreeing..is moral disagreement, but it doesn't change or alter the objectivity of the standard itself..it's just some asshole disagreeing....just as some schmuck thinking that rape is the greatest good (cuz his seed so stronk)won't change anything about the harm it causes to the victim.
Quote:And about the "intentionally tripping someone vs. accidentally tripping someone" argument, I would say both are equally immoral if harm is the standard. After all, when you accidentally trip someone don't you apologize? Why would you apologize if you've done nothing wrong?Because we have a need to reduce confrontation and conflict, particularly when another person does not or may not know that we meant no harm. It;s called being polite, I;m sure you've heard of it. We don't apologize only for being in the wrong, morally or otherwise.
So you don't feel bad when you accidentally hurt someone? You only feel scared that they will hurt you for it?
