? So it’s impossible for two people to rationally disagree about whether or not an action is forbidden if the external state of the world is the same? I see no reason why “forbidden” in the moral sense should be objective.
Arbitrary rules enforced with threats of violence is not an optimal outcome for me. If you have an option other than
a) subjective laissez faire where serial killers are allowed to do their own thing
or
b) Tyranny
I’d be glad to hear it. I know I have.
Assuming you’re generalized that properly and aren’t seriously arguing the most egregious false dichotomy I’ve seen in weeks, I’m afraid that condemning the set of ethics based on social or personal consequences as “tyranny” amounts to dismissing an entire school of thought on aesthetic grounds. Forgive me if I don’t find such a thing particularly convincing.
As I stated: “I know I have” I don’t think a) and b) are the only options either. I don’t see why the decision to call force-based ethics “tryrrany” counts as “aesthetic”. I don’t see why you are so hostile to reason-based ethics. You and various other people seem to
think the rational/ojeciive approach to ethics needs to be dispensed with, but you don’t
say why.
? So it’s impossible for two people to rationally disagree about whether or not an action is forbidden if the external state of the world is the same? I see no reason why “forbidden” in the moral sense should be objective.
If they disagree and they are both being rational, where’s the objectivity?
Try explaining to someone that something they like should be forbidden because you don’t like it.
I agree, it doesn’t look like there is much in this concept.
Okay. “If you don’t stop, I will shoot you.”
But seriously, WTF? Is that supposed to be an argument that if something is morally forbidden to one person it should be the same for another person?
If you don’t go looking for it, you won’t find it. As is so ofen the case on LW, that door has been shut without even trying to see what is behind it.
Arbitrary rules enforced with threats of violence is not an optimal outcome for me.
If you have an option other than
a) subjective laissez faire where serial killers are allowed to do their own thing
or
b) Tyranny
I’d be glad to hear it. I know I have.
Of course. No one should murder. I’m surprised you find that surprising.
Rather than chastising me, why not explain how “forbidden” is objective?
Re: shooting people: it was a joke. The WTF was not with respect to shooting people. It was because your demand was a non sequitur.
For start: are you aware of various (googleablle) standard defenses of metaethical ojectivism?
Is there some other place where you have defended metaethical (or even moral) objectivism?
I am aware of various defenses and find them all thoroughly lacking, but I doubt I have exhausted even the common possibilities. Go for it.
Assuming you’re generalized that properly and aren’t seriously arguing the most egregious false dichotomy I’ve seen in weeks, I’m afraid that condemning the set of ethics based on social or personal consequences as “tyranny” amounts to dismissing an entire school of thought on aesthetic grounds. Forgive me if I don’t find such a thing particularly convincing.
As I stated: “I know I have” I don’t think a) and b) are the only options either. I don’t see why the decision to call force-based ethics “tryrrany” counts as “aesthetic”. I don’t see why you are so hostile to reason-based ethics. You and various other people seem to think the rational/ojeciive approach to ethics needs to be dispensed with, but you don’t say why.