Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6414870" data-attributes="member: 8461">Actually, I disagree - I think that at that point, the question is what do you mean by &quot;objective morality,&quot; since I don't think that it's empirically provable.Leaving aside your undefined nature of what constitutes a &quot;good life&quot; - let alone what &quot;arrangement of personal behaviors&quot; you're talking about - that example is a rather poor one, since it defines anyone who has a particular medical condition (which is what drug addiction is) as somehow being less moral that someone who doesn't have that condition. By your example, anyone who is struggling with drug addiction is living a less morally-worthwhile life than someone who hasn't had to; that's not an example of objective morality, but of personal judgment over another person's worth.The idea of &quot;certain behaviors arguing against the objective nature to ethics&quot; sets up a faulty premise - it presumes that there is an objective nature to ethics that needs to be argued against to begin with. Rather, the premise of objective ethics in the first place is a positive assertion; those who argue that such a thing exist have the burden of proof placed on them to show that it does, rather than the burden being placed on others to show why it does not. (That's not even getting into the point that &quot;circumstantial evidence of an objectively physical world&quot; is not directly comparable to &quot;circumstantial evidence of an objective morality,&quot; as I pointed out in my previous post.)Even if that weren't the case, the premise of this stance is undone by its lack of definitions anyway - does someone who doesn't eat the healthiest option at every meal, even if they'd enjoy a less-healthy meal more, &quot;pursue self-destructive behavior&quot;? Is your life less moral if you skip exercising and decide to order a pizza?This entire rational is based on little more than lionizing a set of norms to such a degree that they're eventually characterized as &quot;so good it just has to be external to myself!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 6414870, member: 8461"] Actually, I disagree - I think that at that point, the question is what do you mean by "objective morality," since I don't think that it's empirically provable. Leaving aside your undefined nature of what constitutes a "good life" - let alone what "arrangement of personal behaviors" you're talking about - that example is a rather poor one, since it defines anyone who has a particular medical condition (which is what drug addiction is) as somehow being less moral that someone who doesn't have that condition. By your example, anyone who is struggling with drug addiction is living a less morally-worthwhile life than someone who hasn't had to; that's not an example of objective morality, but of personal judgment over another person's worth. The idea of "certain behaviors arguing against the objective nature to ethics" sets up a faulty premise - it presumes that there is an objective nature to ethics that needs to be argued against to begin with. Rather, the premise of objective ethics in the first place is a positive assertion; those who argue that such a thing exist have the burden of proof placed on them to show that it does, rather than the burden being placed on others to show why it does not. (That's not even getting into the point that "circumstantial evidence of an objectively physical world" is not directly comparable to "circumstantial evidence of an objective morality," as I pointed out in my previous post.) Even if that weren't the case, the premise of this stance is undone by its lack of definitions anyway - does someone who doesn't eat the healthiest option at every meal, even if they'd enjoy a less-healthy meal more, "pursue self-destructive behavior"? Is your life less moral if you skip exercising and decide to order a pizza? This entire rational is based on little more than lionizing a set of norms to such a degree that they're eventually characterized as "so good it just [i]has[/i] to be external to myself!" [/QUOTE]

Verification