Okay.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:47 pmDon’t know. Let’s try to focus on an example of objective morality for now.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:08 pmHow did you arrive at this conclusion?
You seem to think truth is objective (that's what you must mean when you say, "It is so," for example). What convinced you that morals simply could not be objective?
That can't be established. We know that we DO value things, we don't know what's RIGHT for us to value, if there's no objective morality. Nor do we have any assurance that when we value something, it's actually valuable.What about the value of values per se?
No. If feelings are the basis, then anybody who doesn't feel he has responsibility simply does not have any. And even those who may feel they do, don't know why they feel they do, or that they actually have the responsibilities they are imagining they have.Doesn’t everyone have the moral responsibility to have a set of values of some sort?
That would be all of us, rationally speaking. Because even the people who are not amoral don't have any way to explain to themselves what makes it right for them not to be amoral.Couldn’t we set aside those who are amoral?
The bottom line is this: THAT we have feelings, we all know. But we don't know if we have the RIGHT feelings. We don't know WHY we ought to have those feelings, if we ought to. And we don't know that there is any TRUTH or JUSTIFICATION behind those feelings, because there isn't any objective truth to which we could compare our feelings.
That's the situation of the Emotivist or the Intuitionist. They've got feelings (or intuitions), but nothing else.