Dak Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 So, he dismissed the question as profoundly stupid, yet you still want him to give an answer? I think this is a situation where we must realize that a response of "that's not even wrong" is appropriate, but YMMV. Umm... yes? Otherwize, we've probably hit the point where there is no objective answer and we have to just accept it as an ethical axiom. Which I do; but which also, counter to his claims, stops it being a universal objective ethical system. We can say that a psychopath like Ted Bundy takes satisfaction in the wrong things, because living a life purposed toward raping and killing women does not allow for deeper and more generalizable forms of human flourishing. See, this is what I mean: 1/ Ted Bundy's ethical axioms differed from mine; 2/ hence Ted Bundy's ethical axioms were wrong; 3/ therefore, he'd have been better off with mine; 4/ did I mention my system's universal? Compare Bundy’s deficits to those of a delusional physicist who finds meaningful patterns and mathematical significance in the wrong places (John Nash might have been a good example, while suffering the positive symptoms of his schizophrenia). His “Eureka!” detectors are poorly coupled to reality; he sees meaningful patterns where most people would not—and these patterns will be a very poor guide to the proper goals of physics (i.e. understanding the physical world). OK... but here you can point to reality and say 'it is different to your perception of it, hence you are wrong'. That is objective. Is there any doubt that Ted Bundy’s “Yes! I love this!” detectors were poorly coupled to the possibilities of finding deep fulfillment in this life, or that his overriding obsession with raping and killing young women was a poor guide to the proper goals of morality (i.e. living a fulfilling life with others)? And back to subjective, including another statement that collectivism is better than individualism along with 'depth of fulfilment' (whatever that means) being better than short-term obsessive 'fulfilment'. Ted Bundy would have disagreed you know. none of this is objective. Would humanity suffer more or less, on balance, if the U.S. unilaterally gave up all its nuclear weapons? Why, objectively, should the US aim to minimize human suffering, on balance, rather than try to increase US power/minimize US suffering? Like Severian said: "as soon as someone disagrees with your framework, you are screwed, and back to moral subjectivity". tl; dr? : Which bit of 'we should be nice to everyone' do you think is objective? And you're aware that several people are objectively better off by not being nice to other people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now