But if moral relativism were not true, where would the information about what is objectively moral come from? It isn’t coming from humans is it? Humans, in your view, simply became smart enough to perceive it, right? Can you point out where you derived that information from the physical universe, if not from humans? If the moral information is apparent to all individuals who are smart enough, why isn’t it apparent to everyone where the information comes from, too?
It’s not from the physical universe. We derive it through our ability to reflect on the nature of the putatively good things like pleasure. It is similar to how we learn modal facts, like that married bachelors are impossible.
What is a ‘good’ thing is purely subjective. Good for us. Married bachelors are only impossible because we decided that’s what the word bachelor means.
You are not arguing against moral relativism here.
You are asserting controversial philosophical positions with no justification while ignoring a 10,000 or so word post I wrote arguing against that view. Married bachelors are not impossible based on definition. We have defined bachelor to mean unmarried man, but the further fact that married bachelors can’t exist is not something that we could change by redefinition.
But if moral relativism were not true, where would the information about what is objectively moral come from? It isn’t coming from humans is it? Humans, in your view, simply became smart enough to perceive it, right? Can you point out where you derived that information from the physical universe, if not from humans? If the moral information is apparent to all individuals who are smart enough, why isn’t it apparent to everyone where the information comes from, too?
It’s not from the physical universe. We derive it through our ability to reflect on the nature of the putatively good things like pleasure. It is similar to how we learn modal facts, like that married bachelors are impossible.
What is a ‘good’ thing is purely subjective. Good for us. Married bachelors are only impossible because we decided that’s what the word bachelor means.
You are not arguing against moral relativism here.
You are asserting controversial philosophical positions with no justification while ignoring a 10,000 or so word post I wrote arguing against that view. Married bachelors are not impossible based on definition. We have defined bachelor to mean unmarried man, but the further fact that married bachelors can’t exist is not something that we could change by redefinition.
We decide that “poison” means “what kills us”, but the universe decides what kills us.