Well, that's an ironic performative contradiction!
If we have no objective moral standards - how did you assert this is "no good"? Can you be transparent about the MORAL VALUES you are currently IMPOSING on me, please?
You haven't defined what constitutes "objectivity" or "morality" either. In my field of work (applied science) when you ask a stupid question you get a stupid answer. So I guess that's an even more serious fault?
I can't define what constitutes "harm" anymore than you can define what constitutes a "human", "objective" or "morality". That is not a failing on our part. That is a failing of the tool with which you expect us to solve the problem - language. The symbol-grounding problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem ) stands in your way, not my argument. Your expectations are unrealistic and require some recalibration.
We have INVENTED "objectivity" and "morality" and "humanity" and "society" out of pragmatic necessity! Survival.
Value-laden again! By what MORAL VALUE did you decide that we need principles to tell us what's "right" and "wrong"?
The lion can and does kill the gazelle. The strong can and do take advantage of the weak. It is an opportunity indeed.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:11 amWhy shouldn't the lion kill the gazelle? It might be "harm," but that's what lions do. Likewise, why should the strong take advantage of the weak? The weak might call it "harm" but the strong could regard it as simply a great opportunity. That's what the strong do. We don't morally fault the lion for the kill; why would we fault the strong human for his "kill"?
Observe - you are using the word "we". We who? We - society! WE don't fault the strong for their kill. WE just don't like it. WE would prefer it if WE could trust each other rather and foster co-operation instead of fear and distrust amongst humans. And so WE promise each other NO HARM. And since WE are stronger in numbers WE see an opportunity too! WE make an example of those who don't obey the rules WE have clearly laid out. WE take that which is most precious to them - their freedom of choice.
WE are committed to NO HARM and WE are transparently IMPOSING it on you. Try so much as removing a hair from another human against their will and you will have to deal with me. 6-foot, 95 kilogram, Glock-carrying jiu-jitsu black belt police officer with 160 IQ. But I am civilised - even if I am much stronger and more powerful than you, so I extend to you the courtesy to reason with me instead of me imposing my will on you.
Does that meet your criteria for objectivity?
Still. If you grant me permission - I am happy to interact with you in the framework of 'survival of the fittest". I'll make you sign the indemnity forms and everything... Would you like a safe word?
So you have imposed a moral standard on yourself that is subject to the regress problem in epistemology? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemol ... ss_problem
On what principle do you accept or reject any principles? That's a self-defeating strategy that recurses into nothingness. Talk about vacuous. You have nothing defensible there either - not even your own life!
I trust you are doxasticly commited to your beliefs so let us know when you will be live-streaming your nihilistic suicide on YouTube?