Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:31 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:12 am
When moral realists and objectivists fess up to their peculiar and disturbing fascination with torturing babies for fun - and VA makes it even more exciting by adding the condition 'to death' - you know they've lost the argument.
For the record, I think it morally wrong to torture anyone, to any extent, for any reason - and that includes for the gratification of a masochist.
If YOU believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" [and you don't have grounds for it] then you leave room for other humans to believe "it is morally wrong to torture anyone" even for pleasure.
In this case, you are complicit to the tortures of humans by humans.
1 Pointing out the downside of there being no moral facts - of morality being subjective - does nothing to establish the existence of moral facts. That's a fallacious argument from undesirable consequences.
Strawman and irrelevant to the points raised by me so far.
As I had explained a 'million' times,
Whatever I claimed as a fact must be conditioned to a specific FSK, for example scientific facts. My moral fact as conditioned to a moral FSK is equivalent to a scientific fact.
2 The claim that moral subjectivists have no grounds for their moral opinions is false. For example, I have carefully thought-out reasons for thinking that torturing anyone for any reason is morally wrong. The difference is that I rest my opinion on moral principles, rather than pretending that there are moral facts. Moral objectivism is egotism in action - a profoundly subjective phenomenon: 'there are moral facts, and I know what they are'.
Btw, what is your definition of morality?
- Opinion:
-a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. google
-belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
-a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion
In your case, the grounding of your moral opinions are based on your personal FSK which is obviously subjective.
Regardless that you claim yours are moral 'principles' they remained merely your personal thoughts, beliefs and judgments.
As I had argued, your position of holding on to moral opinions means that others will have opinions that are contrary to yours, i.e. 'it is morally right to torture humans'.
In that case your moral position leaves room for other humans to opine it is morally right to torture humans.
If 100 million of humans are tortured in various forms and degrees, it meant that this will continue and increase with increase in human population and as long as there are humans.
On the other hand, I argued there are verified and justified objective moral facts conditioned /grounded upon a moral FSK, i.e. in this case the 'ought-not-ness to torture humans'.
With this justified and grounded moral fact, human can use it as a guide /vision to strive* for ZERO human tortured and the reality will be a continual reducing trend of humans tortured on an annual basis.
*'Strive' means influencing to tuning and developing the related real neural correlates within the brain as a
moral skill [competence] such that the individual[s] are naturally indifferent to torturing humans.
3 People have radically different opinions on important moral issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, eating animals, gender identity - and, as it happens, the use of torture in some circumstances. To understand and accept that people differ is not to endorse the actions of those we disagree with. That's a grotesque and offensive idea.
By definition, of course you would not endorse what is contrary to your mere opinions but your moral position in principle implied those in opposition are entitled to their opinions.
On that basis, your position, opinion and moral principle will enable /sustain the number of humans tortured at the current levels [appx. 100 million tortured in various forms is a possibility] and that number will increase correspondingly with increase in total human population.
Your moral opinion is ultimately and in reality, a grotesque and offensive idea.
