It’s not better, my point is yours doesn’t exist. It is also the exact same moral subjectivism. Period. You’re just choosing a premade character instead of going into the character customizer. You are still making a choice of morality based on your preference, period.
And it’s not that I’m saying definitively with certainty that morality must be subjective, again my philosophy is that nothing is sacred. But objective morality is the claim and claims must be supported before being accepted. This is how scientific inquiry works. You make a claim, you support that claim, and you invite others to challenge your supporting evidence to see if it holds water. You don’t say my claim is true and it’s up to you to disprove it. By that rational, I would invite you to disprove my claim that god is a crab’s vagina who wants us to eat our own hair.
So it’s not that I’m unwaveringly certain in my conviction that morality is inherently subjective, it’s just that it is the default assumption until evidence to the contrary proves otherwise. So unless you have evidence to the contrary, we remain in the default understanding, but as always willing to reassess and adapt our understanding as additional knowledge is acquired.
It’s not better, my point is yours doesn’t exist. It is also the exact same moral subjectivism.
I understand that if moral subjectivism is correct, morality is subjective. But you can’t just say that analytically true statement over and over again, and expect it to work as an argument. How can you be sure it is subjective?
Why is the subjectivity of morality the default assumption? It is a claim, is it not?
I seem to be perfectly able to do so: objective morality is supernatural, but what makes you think it is reason enough to dismiss it?
We assume some things to exist without proof all the time, and I am not even talking about how we assume the external world exists, but about things like dark matter and the Higgs bosom. Why is an assumption of the existence of a supernatural thing different in terms of credibility from an assumption of the existence of something that exists in nature.
What the fuck are you even talking about? You’re beyond grasping at straws if you’re comparing living life according to a concrete moral code based on nothing with the theoretical existence of the Higgs-bosom, which is absolutely not even remotely treated as sacred, and at this point I have to assume you are simply trying to waste my time, because this is fucking stupid.
If morality is subjective, all morality is based on nothing, that is rather the point.
I am not comparing “living according to a manufactured moral code” to the Higgs boson, this is both a misrepresentation of my argument and a category error.
It’s not better, my point is yours doesn’t exist. It is also the exact same moral subjectivism. Period. You’re just choosing a premade character instead of going into the character customizer. You are still making a choice of morality based on your preference, period.
And it’s not that I’m saying definitively with certainty that morality must be subjective, again my philosophy is that nothing is sacred. But objective morality is the claim and claims must be supported before being accepted. This is how scientific inquiry works. You make a claim, you support that claim, and you invite others to challenge your supporting evidence to see if it holds water. You don’t say my claim is true and it’s up to you to disprove it. By that rational, I would invite you to disprove my claim that god is a crab’s vagina who wants us to eat our own hair.
So it’s not that I’m unwaveringly certain in my conviction that morality is inherently subjective, it’s just that it is the default assumption until evidence to the contrary proves otherwise. So unless you have evidence to the contrary, we remain in the default understanding, but as always willing to reassess and adapt our understanding as additional knowledge is acquired.
I understand that if moral subjectivism is correct, morality is subjective. But you can’t just say that analytically true statement over and over again, and expect it to work as an argument. How can you be sure it is subjective?
Why is the subjectivity of morality the default assumption? It is a claim, is it not?
Because the only way the alternative exists is if we assume the supernatural, and in lieu of evidence to support that, we are unable to do so.
I seem to be perfectly able to do so: objective morality is supernatural, but what makes you think it is reason enough to dismiss it?
We assume some things to exist without proof all the time, and I am not even talking about how we assume the external world exists, but about things like dark matter and the Higgs bosom. Why is an assumption of the existence of a supernatural thing different in terms of credibility from an assumption of the existence of something that exists in nature.
What the fuck are you even talking about? You’re beyond grasping at straws if you’re comparing living life according to a concrete moral code based on nothing with the theoretical existence of the Higgs-bosom, which is absolutely not even remotely treated as sacred, and at this point I have to assume you are simply trying to waste my time, because this is fucking stupid.
Could say the same to you.
If morality is subjective, all morality is based on nothing, that is rather the point.
I am not comparing “living according to a manufactured moral code” to the Higgs boson, this is both a misrepresentation of my argument and a category error.