RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
July 18, 2017 at 11:18 am
(This post was last modified: July 18, 2017 at 11:30 am by The Grand Nudger.)
In a sense, you could say that. Though no position is free - even a subjective moral schema locks a person in on grounds of consistency. It' alot easier, for sure, to ground ones morality in a subjective framework, but that ease comes at the cost of being able to claim moral knowledge. Moral facts of a matter.
There's really no arguing against a subjective morality being a sufficient morality on grounds of it being subjective. As I've commented on previously, there's no practical difference between two correlative moral systems - one subjective and the other objective. The only necessary difference between the two is that one is, meaningfully, "just, like, an opinion, man".
I don;t think that people who propose subjective moral foundations (or who claim that morality is fundamentally subjective) act as if they believe that to be the case. I doubt that you'll find a single person here who thinks that the immorallity of rape is just an opinion, for example. So I guess that could be another cost. The disparity between proposition and action. I chalk that up, primarily, to a sloppy use of terms (or a lack of understanding) combined with centuries of moral bullshittery - but that's just me. If more people understood that objective morality was available and accessible in a secular framework I suspect we'd find fewer people arguing against it. Yet another sad consequence of religion and it's failures. So wrong and fucked up about something that it gets shit on by association. If the only people in the room waxing on about an objective morality were Steve and RR (or worse....the OP - RIP), I too...would conclude that it didn't exist.
There's really no arguing against a subjective morality being a sufficient morality on grounds of it being subjective. As I've commented on previously, there's no practical difference between two correlative moral systems - one subjective and the other objective. The only necessary difference between the two is that one is, meaningfully, "just, like, an opinion, man".
I don;t think that people who propose subjective moral foundations (or who claim that morality is fundamentally subjective) act as if they believe that to be the case. I doubt that you'll find a single person here who thinks that the immorallity of rape is just an opinion, for example. So I guess that could be another cost. The disparity between proposition and action. I chalk that up, primarily, to a sloppy use of terms (or a lack of understanding) combined with centuries of moral bullshittery - but that's just me. If more people understood that objective morality was available and accessible in a secular framework I suspect we'd find fewer people arguing against it. Yet another sad consequence of religion and it's failures. So wrong and fucked up about something that it gets shit on by association. If the only people in the room waxing on about an objective morality were Steve and RR (or worse....the OP - RIP), I too...would conclude that it didn't exist.
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!
