Crake
Protestant Goodbot
No bio...
User ID: 1203
I expect most people to have slightly different moral axioms than me. Small differences are not problematic. The closer they are, the easier it is for us to make compelling moral arguments to each other. And there is a bit of flexibility to people's moral axioms so I may even be able to shift their moral axioms a little bit by making arguments using their other moral axioms. maybe I think some of their axioms are inconsistent and I can try to bring them closer to reflective equilibrium
But some people from cultures far removed from mine could have moral axioms that are bad or evil from my perspective. The grounds on which I would claim they are bad is that they violate the expectations laid out by my own moral axioms. Or that they always lead to ethical conclusions that I find abhorrent. Those moral axioms would be bad ones in my view. They are incompatible with my own to such a degree that I cannot tolerate them. It is likely that they would see my moral perspective as bizarre or evil as well.
I do not see morality as a truth claim. my morals are part of who I am. It's like my relationship with my family. I don't think that my family is the materially best family, that doesn't make sense. However, they are my family, and they matter to me more than anyone else does. They don't need to be the best, or most correct, or most true family, those aren't meaningful attributes of family. They are mine. Same with morals. They are my morals. They are part of who I am.
Can you explain why that account of morality fails or makes me a less moral person? I recognize that if I was born in a different place or time, to a different family, that my morals would be different. The children of christians tend to have christian morals, the children of muslims tend to have muslim morals, aztecs aztec morals. It seems pretty clear that morality is inherited, not reasoned out from first principles for normal people. Again, I would argue that that isn't even possible, moral arguments inherently need to rest on arbitrary moral axioms as a foundation. Any moral argument you make will ultimately be undone by agrippa's trilemma. I can keep asking why and you will eventually reach a foundational moral axiom that cannot be justified. It simply is your moral bedrock.
From Wittgenstein “If I have exhausted the justifications, I have reached bedrock and my spade is turned. Then I am inclined to say: 'This is simply what I do.” Though I might alter that slightly to be "this is simply who I am."
I believe this is how everyone's morality is. I think your morals rely on a foundation of inherited axioms that cannot be justified morally. Which is fine as far as I am concerned. Can you make an argument explaining how your morals violate my view?
I am not saying that my morals are isolated. If Alice was born in a similar place to me, was raised with a similar culture to me, shares a religion or a nationality with me, then we will probably share similar moral axioms. In which case my reasoning for thinking Nazis are bad will be compelling to her. If she doesn't share my axioms, then my reasoning will not be compelling.
I have reasons that Nazis are bad that will be compelling to Alice based on her axioms, but that doesn't seem to rely on material truth, as the axioms are received.
On a larger scale, I think that morals are cultural traits that are evolved and mutated over time. Since they need to be fit in order to spread and survive they have utility, usually, but looking at them from that perspective we would still be making a mistake to argue that one moral position is "materially truer" then another. They represent different solutions to environmental and social problems. We can argue that some axioms have more or less utility, but that is not the same as truth. It's like saying feet are better than hooves. Which would be a weird argument - and also would have nothing to say about feet being truer than hooves. Saying that feet are truer than hooves doesn't make any sense.
I got my moral axioms through upbringing, education, cultural osmosis and to some extent reasoning, but that reasoning required an axiomatic foundation to work from and as that axiomatic foundation had to be received, the entire structure is built on received axioms. So it is all relative.
What, then, do you mean by "bad"?
I mean that it violates my moral axioms and causes me to feel revulsion. The same way I might feel uncomfortable seeing someone violate a cultural custom, but a much stronger feeling.
I don't need my morals to be materially true to be the most important thing to me. Because of the circumstances of my upbringing, they are fundamentally part of who I am. Why is that not enough?
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
9mo ago
The relativist stance simply describes the reality that morality is constructed by humans. If I live in a monoculture I have to live under its moral axioms, which is fine. If I need to make a moral argument I will use those axioms as my starting place. I don't see why that position is abhorrent to you.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
9mo ago
I don't think that is what I said but I am trying to follow your point. morality is an evolved shared thing. It often stops the strong from imposing on the weak. Again, I don't see why that requires it to be objective. It is a cooperative custom.
Regardless of what justice is the strong will impose on the weak. Different cultures will evolve different customs to limit that. Limiting the strong being cruel to the weak seems good to me and also seems to be selected for in the evolution of morality. I think it is a blessing that that tends to happen.
might is not the only factor, culture and argument can affect things certainly, but maybe in this context you would see that as might too. People who can make convincing arguments or manipulate their peers will impose on those who can't
The first post in this chain said that morality is subjective not objective. Which I agree with. morality is crucial but not a material fact. It is based on inherited axioms that are evolved.
The response to that post that I replied to argued that that position leads inexorably to nihilism. Which I disagree with. I believe I can have a substantial moral position while recognizing that it is relative. The post I replied to said:
I think moral relativism collapses into nihilism -- or, if we don't like that word, moral non-realism -- because a principal purpose of ethics is to provide a means of challenging the whims of the powerful with an objective framework, or else justifying their power. If you believe everyone can just make up their own morality and it's exactly as real as yours, you have no means for challenging any perceived mistreatment, or even waging any culture war. To put it bluntly, you have no justification for condemning the Holocaust, because the Nazis were just following their own morality in which the Jews were vermin polluting the land of the volk and that meant they got to kill them. The primary purpose of morality ceases to exist in a puff of logic. That, to me, is a non-real morality.
I don't see why morality can't do the things he wants it to do while being relative.
If I think that the Nazis are bad, which of course I do, I can fight them. Recognizing that my morals are not materially more true than their's doesn't stop me.
I don’t see the problem. Yes morality is relative. Yes my moral values are not materially truer than yours, so what? My morals are my morals, and they are correct, for me. I will act accordingly. I see no reason for this to collapse into nihilism.
“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
10mo ago
Fair. I'm sure they did. But they didn't kill themselves very often and generally succeeded in reproducing their lifestyle to the next generation.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
10mo ago
Totally fair.
You may not value this as highly, in which case you would prefer stricter gender roles.
I don't, and so yes, I do.
But there's more to said about it. I, like everyone born in America, was raised to believe that freedom and self-actualization were great things to have. My default starting point agreed with you exactly. It's only over time that I've come to question it. I said:
Why though? How has the reduction of the strictness of roles that modernity has brought on improved things for people?
I think that my question already kind of accepts that we have more freedom to determine the course of our lives. I just question how much that is actually worth. I live in a wealthy blue bubble. The people I have known in my life have more freedom and ability to self determine than almost anyone on the planet, and yet most of them are not very happy. Happy isn't the be all end all, but I'm not sure they are very fulfilled either, and that is the end all.
Now I think that the good life would be to live in a small village, raised by a shoemaker to make shoes, and to make shoes for people who need those shoes. That sounds more fulfilling. I know that comes from a place of incredible privilege to be able to want that, but I do.
A yearning for the meaning provided by being someone raised to make shoes for a town that needs shoes is probably behind the obsession to make and purchase expensive artisanal good that all of the hipsters in my circles have. But it can't be the same because the artisanal shoes aren't needed the same way, and also you have to be essentially independently wealthy to afford the lifestyle of making shoes for hipsters or of buying those shoes.
But putting away the shoe fantasy. The reality is that suicide is up, sadness is up. The people I know don't seem to enjoy their freedom all that much. With all of this freedom and actualization around me, why do I end up spending so much time with people who complain about everything? Everyone seems to know the answer. It sucks living in an atomized, commercialized society. We want to be part of something. Or, from a more leftist perspective "late capitalism is bad". Fair enough that seems to be true.
I'm not sure that end result can be avoided if liberty/self determination are put as highest goals. I recognize this is probable well mined already on the motte.
What are your thoughts? If liberty/self determination are making you feel really fulfilled and happy and super interested to hear about it. I don't feel like I hear that very often here, or in my real life, honestly.
You're wrong that these things can be easily separated.
I am not a fundamentalist christian. Some fundamentalist christians do not believe in evolution. In fact, evolutionary theory is directly contradictory to what they do believe.
There's "facts" about the world as far as the teacher/establishment understands them and there is "what ought to be done about the state of the world" sort of material,
If I was a science teacher for their children, I would want to teach them evolution (assuming I am following your definition of what is and isn't indoctrination). Evolution is a "'fact' about the world as far as the teacher understands it". However, me simply teaching what I believe to be factual, despite not being a moral value to me or a description of what a person ought to do, would be a threat to their worldview.
My simply providing what I see as facts would be hostile to them. Therefore, personally I would not want to do that - as that seems immoral to me. I would be indoctrinating their children into a worldview that was hostile to the worldview of their parents.
Do you see how I think all education is indoctrination, despite the fact that I am not trying to "raise an army for culture war reasons"? I am actively laying out boundaries of how not to do that.
Cleary from what I said, I disagree with you. I think all teaching is indoctrination. Do you think I am an "ideologue hellbent on using his teaching position as a way to indoctrinate children". I am not a teacher. I am absolutely not interested in indoctrinating the children of anyone else. I am interested in indoctrinating my own future children.
The indoctrination position you lay out is left wing. I am right wing and still stand by my position.
I don't know about "hellbent" but I am in favor of recognizing that it is normal and healthy to indoctrinate the children of my groups into a worldview. Not just teach the facts, but a coherent moral worldview. I don't think that is possible to avoid. Or if it is possible to avoid you will simply end up with children who are profoundly alienated. More likely, you will end up with children who become indoctrinated into some other groups worldview, one that is hostile to you. That is what happens to many children today, they are not indoctrinated enough by their parents so they're indoctrinated by radical leftists.
Attempts to avoid indoctrinating children into any moral/political worldview whatsoever do those children a disservice. Humans are, as Aristotle says "Political Animals". In general we want to belong to a worldview. Failing to provide that for children just makes them vulnerable to being snapped up by hostile ideologies.
I am not a teacher, and I do not want teachers indoctrinating my children. But I would like to raise them to align with my worldview and I recognize that that is indoctrination. I am not a totalitarian about how to raise children, I am happy to make space for them to question things. I mean, I'm here on the motte, I love a good argument and hope my children will express a healthy level of contrarianism. But I will not attempt to avoid bringing them into my culture and worldview. That would be cruel, so I am comfortable with indoctrinating them.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
10mo ago
How could you teach someone how to think without introducing a frame that also teaches them what to think. How to think is a slightly larger space than what to think. But both are indoctrination.
People need a foundation of knowledge that doesn't derive from every individual having to reinvent the wheel, intellectually, but that doesn't come from people's mere curiosity.
I agree that you need to do that to create functional people, but it's still indoctrination. The unfortunate truth is that you need to indoctrinate children.
You need to uncritically build that foundation in people, as an authority figure; from first principles.
First principles are, by their nature, arbitrary. Actually, that's not fair, they aren't arbitrary, they are selected because of their relative usefulness. But they cannot be more or less true than other first principles exactly because they are first principles.
Biblical Truth: Everything the bible says is true. The bible should used as the decider for any dispute. Is a first principle.
The law of non contradiction: "Not both A and not A" or "¬(p ∧ ¬p)". Is another first principle.
There is no way to show that one is fundamentally more true than the other, because they are first principles. You need to use first principles to evaluate the truth of a statement.
Therefore, all education is indoctrination. In many ways, but at the very least in terms of first principles. Which is already going to account for a lot of indoctrination.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
10mo ago
I think that the way you feel may be a normal response to the world you were raised in, but I suspect it is an indication that that world is pretty unhealthy. It seems like a symptom of a profound alienation. Historically, male or female would be a genuinely meaningful category that placed certain rights and obligations on you. I'm not sure that the elimination of that has been psychologically good.
I can relate. I don't feel an automatic urge to identify as a Citizen of my country. It's just something I happened to be born with and while I appreciate the huge benefits it provides me with, I don't feel responsible for the actions of my native country or a strong sense of association with other nominal Citizens. But that's probably a really bad thing. Citizens of a healthy nations automatically partake in the daily plebiscite. I should feel a strong alliance with my nations and my fellows. And most of all, it would be great if my country applied some meaningful obligations on me.
And it makes me sad, because I've always wanted to see gender roles become less rigid, not more. What I fear is that people who deviate from increasingly narrow gender roles are going to be funneled into an increasingly narrow gender role of the opposite sex, which is every bit as much oppressive as a father who berates his son for playing with dolls.
Why though? How has the reduction of the strictness of roles that modernity has brought on improved things for people?
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
11mo ago
Yeah it's pretty nice on the inside but why build a beach house in San Diego (assuming you're super rich)?. San Diego is beautiful, but California makes it illegal to own the beach itself. If I had unlimited money I'd want to put my beachfront property in places where I can keep the riffraff off my sand. How am I supposed to enjoy the beach and the surf if the paparazzi (or just randos) can legally come onto my beach.
It could be so much worse. There's nothing nice about it but it looks like a fine place to use as a base camp for enjoying the san diego weather and beach.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
11mo ago
Right but despite it being added for that reason, it became a tool that allowed twitter to privilege certain people while claiming that they were largely impartial.
They attached benefits to verified users that gave those users a substantive advantage in the twitter agora over other users. Then they preferentially gave verification to users with the preferred left leaning (or at least non-challenging) politics, thereby amplifying the voices of cultural figures on the left over everyone else.
They used verification to launder this advantage and cover the political preference it represented. They could defend giving advantages on their platform to some people and not others by saying "well that person needs verification and that other person doesn't" or just "we're not sure if that person needs verification, but it's in the pipeline to be considered". The requirement for verifications were opaque and allowed them to pick and choose at will who got these advantages and refuse to give any explanation for who got them.
If the purpose of verification was just to prevent impersonation then the rules could have been made explicit. However that would mean that a lot of people who are outside the overton window - but not so outside the window as to be deemed bannable - would get verification, which twitter didn't want.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
11mo ago
It's probably not healthy but I am going to hear about the event a lot in the next few weeks and that breeds curiosity. I don't feel that strongly about it, but thought I might be able to get the straight easily here.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
I think a large contingent of people at the parties I go to drink that much at parties but don’t drink much at all other times. It’s definitely binge drinking but I don’t think it’s that unusual. Alcohol use disorder sure, but it’s common at parties in my experience
can you antagonize an avowed enemy?
Yes. There are many situations where avowed enemies tiptoe around each other and do their best to avoid any escalation of conflict. Mutually Assured Destruction would be an example of a situation where two avowed enemies would actively try to not antagonize each other, because of the potential consequences. In fact I think that's a really good example of what I mean by antagonism. The kind of action you would avoid in such a situation.
Or, can you antagonize a guy in self defense?
No. If the enemy attacks you and you harm them in self defense, I could certainly imagine the enemy claiming that that was an act of antagonism (in fact that may be the default claim in such a case) but from an omniscient 3rd person perspective that would not be antagonism.
Fair enough. Instead of "I assume that they will use their leverage to fuck over their opponents" how about "I assume they will use their leverage to further increase their postion and weaken the position of their opponents".
But this happens even between the tightest of allies, the best of friends. The US-Britain alliance couldn’t stop the US from interfering in the Suez Crisis and US decolonization efforts against britain and france. Refusing an alliance from another power’s sphere without compensation is not the baseline, it would be insanely friendly behaviour. It’s essentially putting their interests above yours, self-sacrifice.
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I'm not sure how that is an argument against my pedantic point. I'm continuing to argue my pedantic point at this juncture because you have requested it, to be clear.
Those actions may or may not be acts of antagonism. I think between allies I might be more likely to call it just rude, but there is little difference. If the US did something it thought would really truly cross the line in offending its ally, then that would clearly be antagonism.
What I meant is that 'avoiding war' sounds good, when really it erases the agency of the other party who declares war, the moral responsibility of the war in the france case in fact rests entirely on her shoulders. You say you expect ‘the conflict’ to escalate, but the conflict doesn’t do anything, it’s an inanimate object. Russia, like France, will escalate if they don’t get what they want. You say Martha's vineyard is important to the US, and ukraine is not, but it is the same moral calculation whether the opponent extorts a trillion or 2 dollars.
I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse in interpreting my position on this. The united states can have an aggressive warlike posture with russia, or a neutral posture, or a friendly posture, or a conciliatory posture. Do you disagree with that?
I don't think that Ukraine is not important to the US. Ukraine may very well be important to the US tactically, but I would like to have a neutral posture with russia. Ideally even a friendly posture with russia. I think everyone would benefit from us finding a path of cooperation between America and Russia, and I see inviting Ukraine into the Western hegemony as indicative of an aggressive posture. A move that may be tactically essential in the case we go to full war with russia, but tactically not relevant if we can find a path towards my preferred future in which we cooperate with russia.
I would like to let Russia have Ukraine in the pursuit of cooperation between West and Russia, something that I think is not an insane position but I think you write off out of hand for moral reasons that are not part of the pedantic component of this argument.
I do not see embracing Ukraine as an act of glorious liberation. I think you do. Beyond the pedantic argument I think this may be the fundamental disagreement. That is fair.
Finally:
To me, antagonizing is not justified by definition
I really don't get this. Why would it be definitely unjustified in all cases? You think it always wrong to intentionally annoy or bully your enemy? On what grounds?
You'd have to be more hostile than an expected baseline. What the west is doing is normal. Competing powers do not turn down free real estate for nothing.
I've been clear that I agree with that. I don't expect the west to behave any differently than it is.
You didn't answer my question, what if they decide that the press criticizing russia is antagonizing, does that fly? It's not up to them to define what is antagonizingI
I suppose it is antagonistic on the part of the newspaper but that doesn't seem very relevant. It isn't USG or the west being antagonistic its the press, and I would expect a state to ignore that for the most part.
A schizo may find it antagonizing that you breathe in his presence, it doesn't make it so.
Ok. I said that "antagonizing" was choosing to do something that with the knowledge that it would bother the other party, not just bothering the other party. But I think your point is fair. I can see the argument that the western hegemony trying to expand and take "free real estate" is as natural to an ascendant hegemony as breathing, and therefore, Russia being annoyed by it is fully schizo. I don't really agree, but I follow your argument.
We're getting bogged down:
Yeah we are. Cards on the table I think I've found myself defending an increasingly pedantic argument.
I think antagonizing can be morally condemned,
I still don't totally get this position. Antagonizing is never justified?
But if you want to call the west's behaviour antagonizing, yet do not recognize any moral value to antagonizing, then antagonizing is fine, so we've both agreed on not condemning the west's behaviour and all that remains are semantics. Or do you wish to attach some other form of condemnation to the term?
I largely agree with this. It is sometimes ok to antagonize. I don't think this situation does justify the west antagonizing Russia, so I do have a moral judgement against it. But that's not because all antagonism is wrong. Specifically this antagonism is wrong. I have unfortunately mired myself in the semantic weeds here. I shouldn't have started an argument about the definition of antagonism. I should have said that what the west is doing in ukraine is simply wrong. It is certainly antagonistc, and also it is wrong. It also is unavoidable.
Btw, 'to fuck over' has moral value, no?
Fair enough. Instead of "I assume that they will use their leverage to fuck over their opponents" how about "I assume they will use their leverage to further increase their postion and weaken the position of their opponents".
What does it mean morally to 'avoid conflict'? If France said they will declare war unless the US hands over Martha's vineyard, you can avoid conflict. Russia's little demands have to be justified by more than their strong feelings and their threats.
I think you know where I stand on this. My stance on americas stake in ukraine is that if we stayed out of it, that would lower the chance of escalating conflicts between america and russia. I don't see what we gain from accepting ukraine into the western hegemony - it seems only useful in terms of strengthening our position in the grand conflict between america and russia, which is something I would prefer we fully navigated around. I don't want to prepare to win in a war with russia, I would like to avoid that war, and I don't see what we get from accepting Ukraine besides weakening russia. I fully expect conflict between america and russia to escalate, but I wish it wouldn't.
The question of France demanding Martha's vineyard doesn't seem like a good equivalent example.
To have a balance of power, you need the rival powers to be balanced, and they are not. Russia is very weak compared to the EU, and completely outclassed by the US. Russia is about as strong as their former colonies put together, and you can't pretend to rule a sphere that is as strong as you and hates you. That would really be unstable.
Prior to the war in Ukraine I would have disagreed, but it's hard for me to make that case now. I guess you're right. That seems like a very bad thing.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
If accepting a sovereign country into your alliance counts as antagonistic, the word has been hollowed of meaning.
That is so wild to me. If you and I were playing a war game, and I, your stated opponent, started forming military alliances with a bunch of entities that are in a good position to fuck you up, of course you are going to find that concerning. That's antagonistic! What is your definition of antagonistic?
The US and EU are not responsible for maintaining russia's unofficial sphere of interest to their own detriment and that of the people in that sphere
Of course not! I absolutely do not expect the united states to avoid antagonizing its weaker opponents. I expect any world power to play their cards for all they're worth. I assume that they will use their leverage to fuck over their opponents. But when we look at the actions taken by a specific entity in world politics, "antagonistic" refers to an action taken by a an entity that is likely to appear knowingly threatening to another entity. It's not a moral judgement. Its just a question of, when party A does this, is that something that will make party B uncomfortable, and is it also something that party A knows will make party B uncomfortable. If so, then it is antagonistic. I'm not saying party A shouldn't do antagonistic things. It just seems clear cut to me that doing things that make russia uncomfortable is antagonistic - and I don't see how that means that "the word has been hollowed of meaning".
The US and EU are not responsible for maintaining russia's unofficial sphere of interest to their own detriment and that of the people in that sphere. Out of what, the goodness of their heart, sportsmanlike respect for a worthy adversary who's fallen on hard times?
I don't expect the USG to avoid antagonizing russia. I expect them to act predatorily whenever possible, but I don't agree that avoiding conflict with russia actually would be to their own detriment or to the detriment of the people of that sphere. Again, I know that america will act aggressively, but as far as I can tell it would be to everyones benefit is they did allow russia to shore up its position. You act like my position is totally unheard of but the concept of "balance of powers" is not alien. I don't expect america to pursue a balance, but I would prefer a balance exist, as an unbalance seems to increase the chance of a real war breaking out. I think a balance would be to everyones benefit.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
I feel like this convo is way off the rails.
I do not disagree with you. Empires justify themselves by might anything else is irrelevant.
But that feels divorced from the context of my comment. my previous comment that you are responding to was questioning why is the west expanding its hegemony not antagonistic Russia expanding its “hegemony” Is antagonistic. I recognize that there is a profound difference between the two, in that the west is able to enforce its antagonism, but that doesn’t make one and antagonistic and the other not.
I feel like this conversation has gotten weird and I find myself arguing pure semantics, so I get that my position here is extremely unexciting, but that was the only point I was making.
The west offering access to Ukraine was antagonistic to Russia. I do not see how that is controversial. It also is thin.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Russia is openly concerned about western hegemony expanding near its borders. Therefore western hegemony threatening to expand near its borders is antagonistic.
Offering entry into its hegemony to anyone who wants it regardless of context is universally antagonistic.
You can argue that it’s morally justified but it’s clearly antagonistic
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Why is America/the west entitled to be an empire and behave like an empire but Russia is not.
And I don’t want Russia to try to expand its hegemony either, but America attempting to expand its hegemony near Russia is antagonistic.
Even if you are arguing that Russia is bad and the west is good, therefore an expansion of western hegemony is not immoral - that’s irrelevant to the argument.
I didn’t say is was immoral for the west to expand its hegemony into Ukraine - all I said was that it is antagonistic. Something can be both morally justified, or even morally obligated, but still antagonistic.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
What they were supposed to do? One option would be helping Russia to keep occupied areas after USSR has fallen but I am not convinced that it would end better in any aspect.
Simply not meddle with regions directly bordering other empires.
Ideally try to maintain polite diplomatic relationships and worldwide power balance between the big dogs.
When an imperial power offers the option of joining its hegemony to a smaller state that directly borders an opposing empire that is egregiously antagonistic. Offering the option to join the American hegemony to anyone who wants to regardless of the effects that will have on the balance of power is obviously antagonistic.
That seems so clearly antagonistic to me that i'm not sure your statement is in good faith. Can you explain how you think that isn't antagonistic?
I think I've been very clear that I don't think that there is an objective badness attached to thinks that I morally oppose. I am using the term bad or evil to denote that my feelings towards them are much stronger than what "not liking" implies.
Your question was how would I explain to someone else that they were bad, and I said that if we had overlapping moral axioms then they would find my reasoning compelling. Between two people with overlapping moral axioms, there will be agreement on what is bad or evil. Is your point that bad and evil are fundamentally objective terms? I am saying I specifically do not think that moral badness or evil are material facts. They are subjective judgements only.
If by actual badness you mean badness as a material fact, then I don't want to make that claim as it is not coherent. I think subjective things are still things. But if you are referring to badness as a material fact I would say that 100% does not exist. The physical world does not contain morality or "badness". That is reserved for the subjective world of humans. It is still very real, but is not a physical characteristic that could be measured using an evilometer.
This is getting pretty esoteric, but I guess I would say that evil and badness are states that I apply to things through judgement. Thereby attaching badness to the thing, subjectively. Another example would be beauty. It is real, but not a physical attribute. But I don't really feel strongly about this area of the argument, as it seems to be mostly semantic to me.
If you are only interested in badness as a material physical attributes of things, fair enough. my answer in that case would be that I simply do not believe that morality or goodness or badness exists as a material physical attribute of any assortment of matter. I think believing otherwise is incoherent and I challenge you to argue that it is coherent.
More options
Context Copy link