Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'relative'.
Found 1 result
This is a subject that is very important to me, and when it was brought up in the topic "Is science incompatible with religion?" I decided to make a separate topic for it. A similar one already exists("assuming that [they believe] objective morality is true, which I don't think so"), but it's old and I feel there are still things to be discussed. Response to Chiki's post from "Is science incompatible with religion?": We can consider all humans as experts on basic morality (like flying a plane into a kindergarten) and on things like the existence of the external world, so we have good reason to trust them. There appears to be a fundamental difference between moral intuitions and the intuitions described in the quoted part of the pdf. The latter deal with actions taken to achieve goals(taking care of infants, saving people from fires, and winning a game of chess), while the former deal with what goals are moral and what goals are immoral. Due to this, I do not think this is a good reason to trust moral intuitions. I am not confident in my wording, but I hope I got my point across. Response to Rapier's post from "Is science incompatible with religion?": Perhaps society would be driven into chaos, but on what basis is that immoral? You seem to be committing an appeal to consequences. I might not post very much, as I am reluctant to post something unless I am sure it is an accurate representation of my thoughts, but I will be watching the topic closely.