RE: List of reasons to believe God exists?
December 7, 2017 at 2:30 pm
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2017 at 2:46 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You're expressing rational self interest. This is one of the inducements to moral behavior contained in moral realism, and no..the premise that you be interested is not required for harm to be objectively bad, or for there to be an objective morality by any other metric, for that matter. You are allowed to disagree, moral disagreement exists...but if your disagreement reduces to subjectivity and the claimants proposition can be shown to be objective.........well, begin again at the beginning.
That you may have a compelling reason to do harm, such as the "genocide" of ants doesn't mean that harm isn't objectively bad. We often have reasons to do the wrong thing, or harmful things..and if killing ants is a wrong or harmful thing then so be it?
Practical solutions and social contracts are -also- contained in many variants of moral realism, and I'd like tpo see you "opt out" of the social contract here in the US. It wouldn;t be in your rational self interest. Moral realists -don't- pretend that theres "more to it than that"...they are defined by their adherence to describing morality for what it is, by objective metrics. This is why the commands of a fairy are a mismatch with moral realism from the word go.
What seems silly, is so many people expressing common precepts of moral realism as contrafactuals to moral realism while arguing that moral realism is a silly idea.
(Just as a baller ass factoid, as far as we can tell...ants don't feel pain or fear. They don't express the behaviors associated with either in other organisms, and they don;t seem to have a "word" for either in their chemical language..so if they did, not only can we not perceive it, they can't communicate it effectively to each other. They're hardcore like that)
That you may have a compelling reason to do harm, such as the "genocide" of ants doesn't mean that harm isn't objectively bad. We often have reasons to do the wrong thing, or harmful things..and if killing ants is a wrong or harmful thing then so be it?
Practical solutions and social contracts are -also- contained in many variants of moral realism, and I'd like tpo see you "opt out" of the social contract here in the US. It wouldn;t be in your rational self interest. Moral realists -don't- pretend that theres "more to it than that"...they are defined by their adherence to describing morality for what it is, by objective metrics. This is why the commands of a fairy are a mismatch with moral realism from the word go.
What seems silly, is so many people expressing common precepts of moral realism as contrafactuals to moral realism while arguing that moral realism is a silly idea.
(Just as a baller ass factoid, as far as we can tell...ants don't feel pain or fear. They don't express the behaviors associated with either in other organisms, and they don;t seem to have a "word" for either in their chemical language..so if they did, not only can we not perceive it, they can't communicate it effectively to each other. They're hardcore like that)
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!
