PrimalZed t1_j9jsup8 wrote
Reply to comment by Judgethunder in Thought experiments claim to use our intuitive responses to generate philosophical insights. But these scenarios are deceptive. Moral intuitions depend heavily on context and the individual. by IAI_Admin
There is no universally true moral statement. There is no way to definitively prove any moral statement. Hence, there is no objective morality.
Judgethunder t1_j9ju677 wrote
Some solutions to problems are going to be objectively better than others in their given context. Morality and ethics are problem solving tools, emergent from the evolutionary process.
Midrya t1_j9jzy2n wrote
Could you provide an example? Certainly there are solutions to problems that maximize for specific goals, but you would need to establish that the goal itself is objectively derived, and not just something that is desired.
Judgethunder t1_j9k2zil wrote
You can deconstruct all frameworks to be meaningless if you want to. But we don't. Our minds and desires are emergent products of evolution with certain common desires leaning toward survival, homeostasis, propagation.
Some outcomes are going to be better than others for this. Some desires and goals are going to be better than others for this.
Could we deconstruct these goals as philosophers and render propagation of our species and our ecosystem and our societies as relatively meaningless? Sure. But we don't. Not really.
PrimalZed t1_j9k6f1m wrote
A social or moral desire being "emergent products of evolution" does not make them objective. It's not even true that all morals are emergent products of evolution.
To give an extreme example to quickly cut to the core here, "We shouldn't press the button that kills all humans" is not an objective statement. It presumes that human life or the continuation of humanity are inherently valuable.
Your position that there is objective morality would be easily proven if you can give an example of an objectively true moral statement.
Judgethunder t1_j9k92bb wrote
Assuming that human life and the continuation of humans is a reasonable assumption to make. And an assumption that nearly everyone makes.
PrimalZed t1_j9kjbl0 wrote
"The continuation of humanity is inherently valuable" is not objective. Yes, it is a value that most people hold, but that does not make it an objective truth. At best, that makes it a common axiom.
That you had to qualify "nearly everyone" holds that value itself demonstrates that it is subjective, not objective.
There is no fundamental universal property that makes humanity inherently valuable. Humanity can cease, and the universe will continue on just fine. We can say that's bad, and construct our morals around that axiom, but that doesn't make the axiom objectively true.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments