3 ms·
Generally agree and find the same. However, I would argue moral philosophy is inherently built on unprovable axioms. The criticism "used to justify whatever th
by ironmagma 4y ago
Generally agree and find the same.
However, I would argue moral philosophy is inherently built on unprovable axioms. The criticism "used to justify whatever they want" is actually a necessary feature to morality, because the whole point of morals is that not everyone shares your morals. If they were shared by everyone, they would just be objective truths.
- ouid 4y agodifferent starting points can yield different results without producing a fundamental problem. It's like the score in a video game. But it is bad if a starting point can yield any result, or a result and its negation, at that point you provably might as well believe anything.
- ironmagma 4y agoThe score in a video game is like the sum of edge costs in a path within a graph. A "morality" is the entirety of the graph, the whole system. So it's apples to oranges.
- robonerd 4y agoAt the bottom of the intersection between moral philosophy and politics is a firm foundation: "Most of us believe X and it doesn't matter if you disagree because we're willing to use force if you don't comply." Nobody wrings their hands that a murderer doesn't share the unprovable moral axioms of those who oppose murder. If a somebody refuses to comply with the anti-murder laws, then force is is used to stop him. Problem solved, no need to consult the philosophers.
- ironmagma 4y agoThat's more the realm of law. Morals can exist outside of force, it's just that communities tend to form around common morals, and if you go against the moral grain you will be sowing dissonance in your area, possibly to the point where you'd want to move out (i.e. too alienated). I would argue a great many locales in the USA are full of moral dissonance, and this is one of the major things holding us back from having strong communities.