(December 7, 2017 at 1:34 pm)wallym Wrote:(December 7, 2017 at 1:32 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Yes harm based morality is Objective no matter how much you assert otherwise. And no being some beings cogs does not make people objectively valuable .
Grandizer, this is absurd. Do you agree with this?
I don't understand Tizheruk's second sentence, but as for the first sentence, I don't see it as absurd. I don't necessarily fully agree with harm-based morality, but it is objective in the sense that if there is harm involved, then it's not a good thing. Harm, bad. No harm, not bad. Objective morality need not be grounded in a person, it can be grounded in concepts such as pain or harm. But I think harm-based system does pose a problem in that the perception of harm itself is subjective to the person upon which the supposed harmful action is being inflicted on. Some people may not be harmed by the stuff other people say, but the same stuff could harm others. So is it bad for the latter group of people, but not the former? I don't know. I'm clearly not a moral philosopher, so I don't wish to speak with authority on this matter, but what would be absurd is to attribute morality to God when God has no clear say in the matter ... because he's not out there telling us what is morally right and what is morally wrong, no moral system given from him to us.
