< 1 2
 
   
 

Intution, reason, and Harris’ moral realism

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  998
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
21 July 2018 03:21
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 20 July 2018 05:56 PM

His worst-possible-misery-for-everyone thought experiment is part of a web of rationalizations to justify his intuition that stoning adulteresses is objectively wrong, etc..

Fair enough.  Then what web of rationalizations do you have for your intuition that stoning adulteresses is not objectively wrong?  Does it boil down to something as simple as his (silly?) thought experiment?  Is it your massaged definitions of “objectivity” and “reality” that we discussed last time?

[ Edited: 21 July 2018 05:38 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6849
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
21 July 2018 14:35
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 21 July 2018 03:21 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 20 July 2018 05:56 PM

His worst-possible-misery-for-everyone thought experiment is part of a web of rationalizations to justify his intuition that stoning adulteresses is objectively wrong, etc..

Fair enough.  Then what web of rationalizations do you have for your intuition that stoning adulteresses is not objectively wrong?  Does it boil down to something as simple as his (silly?) thought experiment?  Is it your massaged definitions of “objectivity” and “reality” that we discussed last time?

My intuition tells me that stoning adulteresses is wrong. But since I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument that right and wrong depend on something besides belief, and since my “massaged” definition of “objective” is, “independent of belief,” then I’m forced to conclude that the wrongness of stoning adulteresses cannot be “objective.”

 
 
 < 1 2