Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:32 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:31 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:14 am
Peter Holmes is trapped inside the Philosophical Realism Silo, thus not able to understand reality in relation to intersubjective consensus at the meta-level. This is why he is unable to understand the secular objective absolute moral laws that are derived and justified from empirical evidence of human nature and nature.
You mean he can't accept your bullshit and so you are trying to recruit me to your ridiculous ideas.
No thanks.
He's way ahead of you, matey.
- But way behind you, what with my closed mind, nearly as deluded as those benighted moral objectivists. Poor old VA, down there in the gutter - with you, an enlightened one, up in the stars.
He's been suckered by Kant. But you've been suckered by postmodern truth-relativist bs, as mired in metaphysics as philosophy's always been.
All you do is complain, complain and complain but unable to provide sound arguments to counter my views.
Btw, what is so wrong with using an ideal as a guide to improve on human behavior.
Say, you are a doctor,
- Scenario A
would you want to work in a hospital that established its vision,
we aim for ZERO death due to doctor's negligence,
then strive to set up systems in the hospital to achieve that vision.
With such a standard and system, the insurance premium on professional liability will be low.
If there happened to be one or a few death due to negligence, the hospital will go all out to investigate prevent future incidence to strive toward its vision.
or
- Scenario B
would you want to work in a hospital that established its standard,
"we can accept 5 deaths per year due to doctor's negligence"
the justification is, it is a fact human are fallible and prone to mistakes,
then the strive to set up systems in the hospitable to maintain the standard.
If there are one or up to 5 deaths per year, this hospital will accept it as the norm and will not be serious to investigate and take serious preventive actions, since it like covered by insurance [from costly premiums].
Surely any average professional doctor will choose Scenario A if faced with the option of A or B.
- Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
In the case of morality [Pure and Theory only], it would be more imperative to establish the idea of ZERO possibilities of wrong and bad behavior abstracted from secular objective absolute moral laws as a only GUIDE.
Since it is only GUIDE, it is effortless, free and without pressure. When the individual moral competence is assisted to a higher level, the individuals will have no problem adopting such a justified ideal as a guide only voluntarily and spontaneously.
You are resisting the ideal now because your moral compass, conscience, and moral quotient is very low.
Btw, what I proposed is not for individuals now but only towards the future [50, 75 or >100 years] when individuals are groomed towards the higher moral standards of the ideal.
It is impossible to implement what I am proposing at present because the average human is being more animal than being more human.
What can be done at present is to discuss the prospects for the future and take effective steps now to get the initial and foundation processes going.
