3 ms·

I don't follow. I meant to suggest that humans will never agree on the same structure of premises and argumentation, and that we simply cannot get past that, to

I don't follow. I meant to suggest that humans will never agree on the same structure of premises and argumentation, and that we simply cannot get past that, to a space above or beyond historical language, to an uncontested consensus. But if not, on what grounds can we possibly say that one particular conception of morality is True or Rational? That is what is required of moral realism - which I take, as an atheist, to be as odd and implausible as theism.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>I meant to suggest that humans will never agree on the same structure of premises and argumentation, and that we simply cannot get past that, to a space above or beyond historical language, to an uncontested consensus. So what? People don't have to agree on the truth. It just has to be true. >But if not, on what grounds can we possibly say that one particular conception of morality is True or Rational? Well partly that depends on how you define "morality", but first and foremost, we can do it by the same means we use to determine that a particular conception of "cream cheese" or "routing algorithms" is True and Rational.