Judgethunder

Judgethunder t1_j9mdhdk wrote

Reply to comment by ChubbiestLamb6 in Thought experiments claim to use our intuitive responses to generate philosophical insights. But these scenarios are deceptive. Moral intuitions depend heavily on context and the individual. by IAI_Admin

Because I think it is indeed a useless philosophical technicality.

There are many objective facts we accept as objective facts because we use our senses to perceive then. Our senses are subjective. Nothing we detect using them is truly objective, from colors, to shapes, to anything at all.

But we set a standard of objectivity based on our senses anyway.

So in the absence of the word of a deity, what kind of objective reality could we possibly expect beside what we can to the best of our ability calculate is in the best interest of all humanity and the ecosystem we are a part of?

The fact that it is usually better to eat than to starve is as objective as me looking up and observing the color of the sky.

2

Judgethunder t1_j9kh9b4 wrote

Reply to comment by ChubbiestLamb6 in Thought experiments claim to use our intuitive responses to generate philosophical insights. But these scenarios are deceptive. Moral intuitions depend heavily on context and the individual. by IAI_Admin

>From everyone else's point of view, you missed the point of what "objective morality" means, and from your point of view, everyone else is bumbling around acting like it's impossible to determine if starving is preferable to being safe and well-fed due to some veil of philosophical technicality. But the real issue is that you're talking past each other.

Yeah. That's about the sum of it.

0

Judgethunder t1_j9k2zil wrote

Reply to comment by Midrya in Thought experiments claim to use our intuitive responses to generate philosophical insights. But these scenarios are deceptive. Moral intuitions depend heavily on context and the individual. by IAI_Admin

You can deconstruct all frameworks to be meaningless if you want to. But we don't. Our minds and desires are emergent products of evolution with certain common desires leaning toward survival, homeostasis, propagation.

Some outcomes are going to be better than others for this. Some desires and goals are going to be better than others for this.

Could we deconstruct these goals as philosophers and render propagation of our species and our ecosystem and our societies as relatively meaningless? Sure. But we don't. Not really.

0

Judgethunder t1_j9ju677 wrote

Reply to comment by PrimalZed in Thought experiments claim to use our intuitive responses to generate philosophical insights. But these scenarios are deceptive. Moral intuitions depend heavily on context and the individual. by IAI_Admin

Some solutions to problems are going to be objectively better than others in their given context. Morality and ethics are problem solving tools, emergent from the evolutionary process.

4

Judgethunder t1_j9jo4z1 wrote

Reply to comment by Killercod1 in Thought experiments claim to use our intuitive responses to generate philosophical insights. But these scenarios are deceptive. Moral intuitions depend heavily on context and the individual. by IAI_Admin

That's one theory anyway. There certain seems to be some pretty clear commonalities of what most people determine as harmful or helpful or what most people regardless of culture find to be a laudible goal.

Even non human animals have some basic intuitions about reciprocity, compassion, and survival. Some answers seem better suited to achieving a generally positive outcome than others.

And of course you could point to some outliers who might find for whatever reason that causing unneeded suffering is somehow ideal for them. But I could also probably find a similar number of people whom when placed in an unlocked cage decide the best way out is to defecate on the floor.

What I mean to say is people say "There is no objective morality" like that is some kind of given, obvious statement. When it's not. It's just as likely to be a coping mechanism for our lack of ability to make optimal ethical determinations due to our biases and flaws.

4