Weirdtopia said:My apologies, just fustrated
No problem, Weirdtopia.
It is a frustrating undertaking. And let me be clear, I do not think that you're a bad guy!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weirdtopia said:My apologies, just fustrated
In response to my statement: 'Presupposing that such value judgments must be completely acknowledged and willed by the actor does make the only meaning of morality subjective.'mknorman said:(!) This is not a presupposition, but the starting point. All other claims about 'morality' have to be recognized as positive, as requiring some kind of demonstration! It's really just a consequence of the fact of autonomy. Otherwise, what privilege does this [unconscious or involuntary or third party] valuer have to make these judgments in an objective way? How did it get this privilege? I still say that we have only the fact of nihilism, and that moral skepticism is its consequence. These actions aren't 'good' or 'bad' to anything or anyone outside of the judger. This is what you have to establish, the right or privilege of a third-party (possibly disembodied) valuer to make binding pronouncements about the objective goodness or badness of a particular action.
Ozymandyus said:First, I want to say I don't buy into this idea of morals being obligations. This is probably the main reason we have any disagreement at all. You are right that you are probably capturing more of the meaning of morality as it is commonly used while I am still trying to redefine it into something useful, something that can have real meaning. Feel free to replace any of my uses of the word morality with moreality in the text below, if this is something you feel should not be done.