Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mardoc Redcloak" data-source="post: 3765526" data-attributes="member: 40569">Isn't this just "truth by definition"?Agreed.Well, the "best" arguments for subjective morality are more or less the best combined accumulated arguments against all the attempts at objective morality.They tend to echo the first part of Kant, the idea that (objective) morality can't be based on particular ends because it is not a necessary truth that I will actually seek that end. You can tell me that "to achieve happiness" or "to satisfy my natural moral sentiments" or "to fulfill my fundamental desires" I must do x, y, and z, but if I don't care about any of those, none of them obligate me--and even if I do care about them, they aren't really "obligation" because fundamentally I fulfill them because I want to. I might feel obligated to do other things even if I do want to do those, and if the basis of the principle is simply the general inclination to do it, the case for superseding that sense of obligation won't be very convincing.As far as "reason" goes they tend to focus, like I said in reply to Felix, on its instrumental role at directing means to ends, and doubt that it can ever set before us anything as an end in and of itself.Crucial to the subjectivist argument is the is-ought gap, the idea that "is" statements can never imply "ought" statements and therefore we cannot rationally reach objective morality from the knowledge available to us--matters of "is."</blockquote>

Verification