Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:34 pm
Sigh. No, they default to quasi-realism, with an anti-realist foundation.
Translation: "They pretend to have objective grounds, and hope nobody will ask; because there's no anti-realist foundation for them to refer to."
All subjectivists know that there is no objective foundation. Most of them also know that it's in most people's best interest to come up with good enough consensus foundations anyway, and build morality on those. For example a consensus foundation: optimal continued survival and thriving of humanity.
They don't obsess 24/7 about the lack of objective foundations, they just delegate that to the back of their minds. That would be akin to obsessing 24/7 about the inability to go beyond solipsism with certainty.
They only hope that objectivists won't ask for an objective foundation, because there isn't one. Objectivists also don't happen to have objective foundations, they are merely deluded in believing that they do, which makes their request pretty annoying.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:11 am
All subjectivists know that there is no objective foundation. Most of them also know that it's in most people's best interest to come up with good enough consensus foundations anyway,
No good. Now you need an objective principle that says, "Consensus is right." And you need another from which to define your conception of "good enough" or of "optimal." You still need something objective, based upon which to orient any moral precept you advance.
You don't have anything like that, so you're not making any progress at all.
Subjective simply means "arbitrary," as well as "solipsistic," and ultimately, "unjustifiable."
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:11 am
All subjectivists know that there is no objective foundation. Most of them also know that it's in most people's best interest to come up with good enough consensus foundations anyway,
No good. Now you need an objective principle that says, "Consensus is right." And you need another from which to define your conception of "good enough" or of "optimal." You still need something objective, based upon which to orient any moral precept you advance.
You don't have anything like that, so you're not making any progress at all.
Subjective simply means "arbitrary," as well as "solipsistic," and ultimately, "unjustifiable."
Nope, there is no objective ruler. Of course everything is ultimately unjustifiable, that's just how the world works.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:21 pm
no one can...that's why anti-realists keep defaultin' to speakin', writin', thinkin' like realists...they are realists
Anti-realists are realists.
Amoralists are moralists.
Objectivists are subjectivists.
Left are right.
Capitalists are Marxists.
All categories are made up. They are the foundation of our Language Tribes...
