Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:37 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:35 am
Is there a 'thought' or 'view' that exits "independently of person"?
Obviously not,
Great.
Is this the FIRST time that we have agreed on some 'thing'?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:37 pm
hence why if one agrees that moral stances are judgments or something similar--some sort of view or thought, then it should be obvious to one that morality isn't objective.
But just because one has a 'moral stance' or a 'moral judgement' then does this necessarily mean that 'morality', itself, is 'objective'?
What do you mean by 'objective' here?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:37 pm
People who believe that morality is objective need to explain what a moral stance would amount to independent of persons.
But what a person has, or people have, as a 'moral stance' actually got to do with whether 'morality', itself, is 'objective' or not?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:37 pm
They need to explain just how that would obtain, what would it be instantiated as or in, what would it be a property of, etc.
But a personal 'moral stance' is just a personal or subjective judgment or viewpoint.
Again, what has this got to do with 'moral objectivity'?
Or, with a 'moral objective'?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:37 pm
Otherwise they're stuck trying to equate "objectivity" with some sort of normative, but that doesn't work, because there's no way around that reducing to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
But adding some 'thing' like "argumentum ad populum fallacy" into the thinking/reasoning here is faulty thinking in and of itself, and thus just a fallacy in and of itself as well.
Also, and before I forget, are you 'trying to' imply/infer that a 'moral stance' could NOT be a 'fact'?
If yes, then how do 'you' define the word 'fact' here?