RE: Subjective Morality?
November 12, 2018 at 11:02 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2018 at 12:04 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Moral realists and subjectivists both think that there is an objective truth, they differ only in what they think that truth is about. Both are cognitivist positions which have rejected error theory.
-as a suggestion, I think that you could get alot more traction with what you're trying to object to if you went the route of relativism, personally.
It doesn't fit your description of what morality is, exactly - but it fits your truths in context and the thrust of your objections regarding moral difference. The kicker, there, though, is that relativism and objectivism are the two most widely cited candidates for a pluralist moral description. It's noted that relativism might be more suited for some propositions than others, and that those propositions to which it isn't (at least seemingly) well suited are those propositions to which objectivism is (seemingly) well suited. I don't personally think that relativism provides a compelling case, ultimately..but I will note that it's far more difficult to dismiss out of hand than subjectivism. It would require a shift of focus, on your part, to consideration of evaluative premises over the existence of moral facts...which, fwiw, I'm pretty sure is what you think I'm talking about when I use the term moral fact.
-as a suggestion, I think that you could get alot more traction with what you're trying to object to if you went the route of relativism, personally.
It doesn't fit your description of what morality is, exactly - but it fits your truths in context and the thrust of your objections regarding moral difference. The kicker, there, though, is that relativism and objectivism are the two most widely cited candidates for a pluralist moral description. It's noted that relativism might be more suited for some propositions than others, and that those propositions to which it isn't (at least seemingly) well suited are those propositions to which objectivism is (seemingly) well suited. I don't personally think that relativism provides a compelling case, ultimately..but I will note that it's far more difficult to dismiss out of hand than subjectivism. It would require a shift of focus, on your part, to consideration of evaluative premises over the existence of moral facts...which, fwiw, I'm pretty sure is what you think I'm talking about when I use the term moral fact.
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!
