Judgethunder t1_j9kh9b4 wrote on February 22, 2023 at 5:19 PM

Reply to comment by ChubbiestLamb6 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

>From everyone else's point of view, you missed the point of what "objective morality" means, and from your point of view, everyone else is bumbling around acting like it's impossible to determine if starving is preferable to being safe and well-fed due to some veil of philosophical technicality. But the real issue is that you're talking past each other.

Yeah. That's about the sum of it.

ChubbiestLamb6 t1_j9l5mcs wrote on February 22, 2023 at 7:47 PM

Soo...if you're aware of the problem, is there a reason you don't change your approach to the conversation?

Judgethunder t1_j9mdhdk wrote on February 23, 2023 at 12:30 AM

Because I think it is indeed a useless philosophical technicality.

There are many objective facts we accept as objective facts because we use our senses to perceive then. Our senses are subjective. Nothing we detect using them is truly objective, from colors, to shapes, to anything at all.

But we set a standard of objectivity based on our senses anyway.

So in the absence of the word of a deity, what kind of objective reality could we possibly expect beside what we can to the best of our ability calculate is in the best interest of all humanity and the ecosystem we are a part of?

The fact that it is usually better to eat than to starve is as objective as me looking up and observing the color of the sky.