You're still trying to allude that there's no such thing as Moral Objectivism because there might be a Semantic Argument. What's a Semantic Argument for a dog? So they recognize the same thing, but different? In other words, there's NO recognition and ONLY interpretation.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't believe in 'moral objectivism' at all . Also recognition doesn't negate interpretation and vice versa. Our receptors may receive the exact same signals, but interpret them differently based on many, many factors, like our past experience, knowledge, instincts, genetics, current hormones level, diet, mood, beliefs, environment, influecne and many more. Animals recognize what's good for them, same do people. I understand 'moral objectivism' as some general code which defines what's good and what's bad, like that killing is bad and feeding the hungry is good, and if so then this code doesn't apply to all living beings and therefore it's a failed theory.
You can say so. No living being is able to recognize things as they really are, we only see the very limited spectrum of things, many signals received by millions of faulty receptors which are sent with whole lot of data loss to our brains which then mix and match these scrapage pieces of data and throw out some kind of reasoning back to our consciousness layer.
It all depends on the level of abstraction you decide your perception lives in. You say theft is objective? Even legislative definition of theft differs by country. Is taking a life jacket from a parked private yaht to save someone's life a theft or an act of courage and good will? Is taking from the rich and giving to hungry theft or act of courage and good will? Is rape always bad? What if there's only one woman left on earth and one man and she doesn't want to have sex? Will rape be perceived as bad or as an act of greatness to save the humanity? It's all just hypothetical and only to show that there's no objective good or bad, there's no objective morality. It's all subjective and what's good for one being is bad for another.
Sorry, I can't agree with you at all. The theft can't be objective because even ownership isn't objective. You'd first need to have the ownership recognized objectively to even consider a theft (taking the ownership away without permission). Are you sure the house you paid for belong to yourself, or maybe it belong to the worms who occupy the land it's built on for generations? Anyway, I'm done here. Thanks for the discussion. It's always good to share different points of view. BTW, there would be no discussions needed or even existing if the 'morality' would be objective, there would be nothing to discuss, ever.