That is interesting and goes against my model. I notice that I am confused. Actually, looking further in your stuff, I’m very confused about a lot of your beliefs. Eg, objective morality as an atheist confuses me too.
How big part of the confusion about “objective morality” is the confusion about specific meaning of those words?
That is, do you have a clear definition of “objective” and “morality”, and the problem is putting those two definitions together and evaluate the evidence for/against the result… or is it more like there are dozen possible meanings of “morality”, combined with a few possible meanings of “objective”, and the problem starts by having to choose which of these meanings is right according to some unspecified criteria?
In other words, if you wrote here your best argument for/against “objective morality”, would you expect counter-arguments in form “you have ignored or misinterpreted this” or in form “no, objective morality does not mean what you said, it means this”?
That is interesting and goes against my model. I notice that I am confused. Actually, looking further in your stuff, I’m very confused about a lot of your beliefs. Eg, objective morality as an atheist confuses me too.
How big part of the confusion about “objective morality” is the confusion about specific meaning of those words?
That is, do you have a clear definition of “objective” and “morality”, and the problem is putting those two definitions together and evaluate the evidence for/against the result… or is it more like there are dozen possible meanings of “morality”, combined with a few possible meanings of “objective”, and the problem starts by having to choose which of these meanings is right according to some unspecified criteria?
In other words, if you wrote here your best argument for/against “objective morality”, would you expect counter-arguments in form “you have ignored or misinterpreted this” or in form “no, objective morality does not mean what you said, it means this”?