Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 8:49 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:07 am
Agent Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:06 am
There are very good reasons to "go out", oui monsieur?
Are you suggesting we date? (but seriously, I am not sure what you mean)
I was only considering the rationality of it all? The OP is asking
why so and so?
It seemed like the OP was telling how things are. That there are moral facts. Not facts about our morals, but moral facts. I don't think the OP works, for reasons pointed out by myself and others. He doesn't read my posts - at least, he no longer responds to them. But I don't think he adequately responded to other people's objections.
I doubt anyone here likes the idea of torturing babies.
I would guess that social mammals in general would find watching such a thing, even in babies of other species, to be unpleasant. I mean, dogs will try to stop tickling a human child sometimes.
Then culture also comes in around this kind of thing - though in certain periods of history for some today, harming the enemy's babies is fine.
Anyway, not much controversy there for most people.
I don't know why we have to call it objective. I don't think anything is gained.
It is a very strong tendency to dislike this. It's not universal and hasn't been in other periods of time.
But let's say it is universal. Does that make it objective. Objectively good. I don't know what that means. What are the objective criteria for goodness? What raises a preference to an objective good?
It may not seem like a problem with torturing babies, but run it over to abortion or chips in brains or having a very smart AI run society or traditional vs. modern parenting styles....
Using that word it seems to me would be raising someone's values, to give their preferences power.
It seems to me parsimony leads us to viewing our preferences and tendenices to prefer thing rather than coming in with the idea that there are objective morals. We have preferences or values. Wait, they are not only our values, but they are objective facts.
I don't see any evidence that adding this idea explains something not explained by them being our preferences, some innate some cultural, most a mix.
And in those instances, like torturing children, where we have, at least in some societies near consensus, we don't need to bring in the hammer of 'it's an objective fact'. We have agreement.
Where we don't, we don't even have universal, let alone objective.
And what's beneficial for humans might be bad, for example for life in general. Shouldn't we give wolf-preferences the possibilty of being objective?