Are you merely choosing your definition arbitrarily, or do you have an underlying justification for the "consequence" you have chosen? If you choose "not causing harm," and I choose, say, "fulfilling my personal desires," is there any means of deciding which of us is choosing well, and which is choosing not-so-well?uwot wrote:Consequentialists, like myself, start with some definition of 'moral' along the lines of 'not causing unnecessary distress or harm'.
In other words, since there are many forms of Consequentialism, each oriented to a different consequence, how do you choose yours?
Then you would be being arbitrary -- though yes, indeed, you can choose to be arbitrary, of course. We all have that freedom. But if you wish to be able to make your opinion winsome to anyone else, you're going to have to say why you believe it: that is, unless they just happen to want to join you on a purely arbitrary basis of their own.You are tripping over yourself. I don't have say why I believe something I don't think.Immanuel Can wrote:...but you can't say why you believe it either.
How does one "fight," though, without reference to reasons? How can you convince anyone if, as you say, you assert your view merely as arbitrary and devoid of grounds that are compelling to anyone else? Common reasons are what make arguments work. There's no philosophical "fight" without them.Immanuel Can wrote: if I can't convince them, I either accept defeat or I keep fighting; that is what happens in the real world.
Yes, but it's not particularly relevant to the question of whether such laws exist. People's approval is not a prerequisite for the ontology of anything.The point I was making is that even if there is a set of god given laws, because of our 'free will', some people will not believe it. Even god knows that.
I am perhaps not understanding your language, then. It seemed clear to me you were assuming that people's agreement had something to do with our judgment about whether or not objective morals could exist. If you were not, I apologize, and am happy to let you revise if you wish. But what then were you saying?I have not said anything that you can attribute that to. It is just your poor logic that makes you think otherwise. You are bearing false witness again.Immanuel Can wrote:Your second fallacy is to think truth and consensus are related.