Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 2:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:33 am
The point is not about my views but rather Nagel's view that moral objectivity is related to detachment.
The point is that if objectivity is the same as detachment, which you have now said. That view of Nagel's is useless.
Moral objectivity is related to objectivity. Well, of course. So either he thinks of them as meaning different things. Or his position is a truism. According to YOU. What you present as what these terms mean, coupled with your agreement with another thinker.
My point here is,
PH et. al. insist morality cannot be objective pending proofs.
I believe morality is objective.
There are many perspectives to objectivity.
This thread is one perspective that 'Morality is Objective' from one specific person, i.e. Nagel.
I do not full agree with Nagel but he have very good points re objectivity.
Nagel is a hardcore philosophical realists, so he does not believe there are mind-independent moral elements out there.
However, Nagel believes in the existence of the very evident moral elements, but understands whatever the moral views it is [inevitable, inherent, unavoidable] from someone, i.e. a subject, thus subjective.
To Nagel, one possible to separate this inherent subjectivity is to establish a state of detachment, i.e. generate an objective self that is separate from the ordinary person in everyday life; this is his thesis of 'a view from nowhere'
Thus when one deliberate on morality from this detached objective self, there can be morality that is objective.
I am not sure about your other points, so I will avoid them, else it is a waste of my time and effort trying to guess what your intents are.
I notice you did not respond to the fact that emotions drive our choice about what we even bother to make a morality about.
Don't forget when we deal with 'morality' the focus must be on the specific moral elements not on a blanket basis.
One example to counter the above.
At the present [at every moment], are your emotions involved at all [are you making moral decisions at all times as driven by your emotions] when you are not going about killing, raping, torturing babies, harming others, etc.?
This demonstrate that morality per se is independent of emotions.
It is only when you are triggered with an awareness of an impulse to commit any of the above evil acts that your emotions are triggered to react either to inhibit [via empathy] or motivate to act out [e.g. in anger] the triggered evil impulse.
Actually when one has to make moral choices and decisions, that is not precisely morality per se.
Morality is about being moral naturally
in a moral state that is cultivated from the moral potential.
The moralities you talk about all prioritize other humans. Because we care about our own. Only very recently have we started to include other species (at least in civilizations) in our moralities. Why? Because we have started to acknowledge that they are like us. AGain, preferences for things like us. Again, emotionally driven and not only driven but created. How should be treat those things that we care about?
I have always maintained that morality is independent and confined to humans only.
Else there are loads of complicated issues to navigate, e.g.
-humans has to kill animals for food
-if morality is applicable to animals, what about the one-celled organisms like viruses, bacteria, pests, and so on that must be killed and those that we kill inadvertently.
So, it is optimal to confine morality to human only whilst extending optimal care [with rationality and wisdom] to non-human animals and the environment which has an impact on the well-beings of the individuals and humanity.
If there is any semblance of animal acts or states to morality in the human sense, it would be wise [avoid confusions] to label it as something else, and NEVER conflate with the term 'morality' applicable to humans.