(May 3, 2018 at 8:26 am)robvalue Wrote: Hi guys
I'll come back to check out your replies properly when my head's in the right space (this stuff makes me go a bit funny sometimes!) but I wanted to add a few more thoughts in the meantime.
I notice a kind of tautological use of "morality", as this simulated conversation between a pretend objective morality person is supposed to indicate. I'm not saying this is anyone in particular, it's just a simplified strawman to indicate my thoughts. Feel free to comment on where the conversation could differ.
Action A is objectively immoral.
Why?
It causes a form of unnecessary harm H.
What makes that objectively immoral?
Because causing unnecessary harm is objectively immoral.
So... the usage of the word "immoral" here is entirely redundant. It just means "unnecessary harm". All I'm actually being told is that action A causes consequences H. Whether or not that means someone should or shouldn't care about this when deciding on their actions has yet to be established. It's only relevant to someone who cares about this, and so it's not objective morality, in that sense.
I'm buying what you're selling here. For example, I've just created Squirrality. Squirrality says causing unnecessary harm to squirrels is objectively imsquirral.
