uh… I guess cannot get around the regress involved in claiming my moral values superior to competing systems in an objective sense? I hesitate to lump together the same kind of missteps that are involved with a mistaken conception of reality (a mis-apprehension of non-moral facts) with whatever goes on internally when two people arrive at different values.
I think it’s possible to agree on all mind independent facts, without entailing perfect accord on all value propositions, and that moral reflection is fully possible without objective moral truth. Perhaps I do not get to point at a repulsive actor and say they are wrong in the strict sense of believing falsehoods, but i can deliver a verdict on their conduct all the same.
uh… I guess cannot get around the regress involved in claiming my moral values superior to competing systems in an objective sense?
It looks like some people can, since the attitudes of professional philosophers break down as:
Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%.
I can see how the conclusion would be difficult to reach if you make assumptions that are standard round here, such as
Morality is value
Morality is only value
All value is moral value.
But I suppose other people are making other assumptions.
Perhaps I do not get to point at a repulsive actor and say they are wrong in the strict sense of believing falsehoods, but i can deliver a verdict on their conduct all the same.
Some verdicts lead to jail sentences. If Alice does something that is against Bob’s subjective value system, and Bob does something that is against Alice’s subjective value system, who ends up in jail? Punishments are things that occur objectively, so need an objective justification.
Subjective ethics allows you to deliver a verdict in the sense of “tut-tutting”, but morality is something that connects up with laws and punishments, and that where subjectivism is weak.
uh… I guess cannot get around the regress involved in claiming my moral values superior to competing systems in an objective sense? I hesitate to lump together the same kind of missteps that are involved with a mistaken conception of reality (a mis-apprehension of non-moral facts) with whatever goes on internally when two people arrive at different values.
I think it’s possible to agree on all mind independent facts, without entailing perfect accord on all value propositions, and that moral reflection is fully possible without objective moral truth. Perhaps I do not get to point at a repulsive actor and say they are wrong in the strict sense of believing falsehoods, but i can deliver a verdict on their conduct all the same.
It looks like some people can, since the attitudes of professional philosophers break down as:
Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%.
I can see how the conclusion would be difficult to reach if you make assumptions that are standard round here, such as
Morality is value
Morality is only value
All value is moral value.
But I suppose other people are making other assumptions.
Some verdicts lead to jail sentences. If Alice does something that is against Bob’s subjective value system, and Bob does something that is against Alice’s subjective value system, who ends up in jail? Punishments are things that occur objectively, so need an objective justification.
Subjective ethics allows you to deliver a verdict in the sense of “tut-tutting”, but morality is something that connects up with laws and punishments, and that where subjectivism is weak.