Actions exist in reality. Actions are objective. Reducing everything to non human aspects in order to qualify them as objective is a fallacy. Moral evaluations of actions are based on harm being done. Harm can be evaluated and measured. It takes consciousness to do so, just as it does to measure anything else and communicate that measurement.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Agreed. However the motivations, justifications, and interpretations of those actions are subjective.
If it's not objective, what distinguishes it from mere opinion?
Whose morals, yours or mine? Harm suffers from the same issues with definition. What constitutes harm? Upon what objective and universal standard can it be evaluated and measured?
Indeed. Just as anything else above basic functions does. Consciousness is also the source of the disagreement over terms.