4 ms·

I don't think that secular society posits some kind of natural inalienable objective moral law. I'm sure you know this but many, many people do not believe in o

I don't think that secular society posits some kind of natural inalienable objective moral law. I'm sure you know this but many, many people do not believe in objective morality

kragen 3y ago
almost all secular people do in fact believe in objective morality to some degree, though you can occasionally find a pure moral relativist or legalist remember that the holocaust, the great leap forward, gulag, the imprisonment of galileo, daily human sacrifice to the aztec sun god, and witch-burnings in the spanish inquisition were not just legal but legally required therefore, anyone who condemns one of them is appealing to a moral standard they consider superior to, at least, the legal systems of the countries in question at the time
- bowsamic 3y ago
  I have never met a secular person who appeals to an objective moral standard personally
  - kragen 3y ago
    [flagged]
abecedarius 3y ago
The idea of rights can be seen to emerge in large part from multiagent decision theory. This should not be surprising because moral intuitions arose as humans evolved living in groups. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.htm...
- kragen 3y ago
  this is a very interesting article; thank you
- bowsamic 3y ago
  Sure but that doesn’t imply that it’s objective. I mean, I think there are two levels of objective: objective among humans, and objective among the universe. I don’t know any secular person who believes that morals fall into the latter category. As for the former, I don’t think anyone can suggest that the (lack of) a right to privacy falls into in that
  - abecedarius 3y ago
    I'm not sure quite what you mean by the last sentence. A "right to be forgotten" seems to mean a conflict with the classic rights of others to remember what they know, and to tell each other what they know.

I don't think that secular society posits some kind of natural inalienable objective moral law. I'm sure you know this but many, many people do not believe in objective morality

kragen 3y ago

almost all secular people do in fact believe in objective morality to some degree, though you can occasionally find a pure moral relativist or legalist remember that the holocaust, the great leap forward, gulag, the imprisonment of galileo, daily human sacrifice to the aztec sun god, and witch-burnings in the spanish inquisition were not just legal but legally required therefore, anyone who condemns one of them is appealing to a moral standard they consider superior to, at least, the legal systems of the countries in question at the time

bowsamic 3y ago
I have never met a secular person who appeals to an objective moral standard personally
- kragen 3y ago
  [flagged]

abecedarius 3y ago

The idea of rights can be seen to emerge in large part from multiagent decision theory. This should not be surprising because moral intuitions arose as humans evolved living in groups. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.htm...

kragen 3y ago
this is a very interesting article; thank you
bowsamic 3y ago
Sure but that doesn’t imply that it’s objective. I mean, I think there are two levels of objective: objective among humans, and objective among the universe. I don’t know any secular person who believes that morals fall into the latter category. As for the former, I don’t think anyone can suggest that the (lack of) a right to privacy falls into in that
- abecedarius 3y ago
  I'm not sure quite what you mean by the last sentence. A "right to be forgotten" seems to mean a conflict with the classic rights of others to remember what they know, and to tell each other what they know.