This dimwit doesn't get it. Not even a little bit. Not even at all.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 6:44 pm <blah blah blah>
So if you are asked why you, as some sort of Humean, would choose to act honourably or honestly or something, the obvious answer is that it is because you believe acting honourably and honestly are good things, and you are motivated by your beliefs and desires which is perfectly natural.
The principle of equifinality is fundamental in open systems. In brief: there are infinitely many paths to the same destination/outcome.
This entire rambling about morals/choices is fundamentally confused soon as you erase the possibility of any difference.
So you choose to act morally? OK.
So you choose to act immorally? OK.
So you choose to act honourable, honestly <insert virtues here>? OK.
Different people - different ideals. What now? Well. lets raise the stakes on justification by asking: Objectively speaking - does any of it make any difference?
Subjectivists can't answer this question without imploding their paradigm.
Humeans and Kantian deontologists can't answer this questions without empirical cosnequentialism.
If different choices make no effective difference - then there is no point in making any choices. Just flip a coin.
Anything other than consequentialism is vacuous and self-defeating.
So is there an objective difference between True and False? If there isn't then philosophy implodes and becomes pointless.