Friday, October 26, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Moral realism
I plead for moral realism, one involving both objective morality and subjectivism.
Morality can be objective like science in being public and debatable. It notes sociological relativism but disowns moral relativism, but endorses situational morality.
My form is also subjective in being a version of wiserefelective subjectuvusn, the considered moral judgment that overrides mere wishes and tases.It however is itself objective in being [1] univesral, for everyone and [2] equitable.
Others might endorse one or the other component, but nevertheless both forms or my combined form establish morality as binding.
Its public openess stems from how one views consequences for sentient beings and the environment.To oppose it others depend on - consequences.
It is thus teleological and utilitarian .Yet, it endorses the categorical imperative, so a measure of deontology forms part of it, and rules and virtues stem from it.
It is hedonistic like Epicureanism-refined,
It is thus ecletic.
What ethic do you endorse?
We depend on our moral sense that we have to refine. It is an evolutionary product. We discern glimmers of morality in other anismals.
With Paul Kurtz, I plead for a planetary ethic- concern for all humanity, not just the "tribe."
Theistic ethics is just simple subjectivism, what misanthropes just made up in large part from their tastes and whims. It is egregious.
Thus it does no boon to claim that God ontologically ensures it! And to claim in order to overcome the Euthyprho, as Aquinas so attempts by maintaining that God's nature is good begs the question thereof. God speaks with a forked tongue-lo, the many contradictory theistic moralites!
In the hands of Lord Russell and others, it can be a positive boon.
Should theists use reason and facts for the good of people, then they are implicit humanists; we don't thus depend on theism for morality at all.
Morality can be objective like science in being public and debatable. It notes sociological relativism but disowns moral relativism, but endorses situational morality.
My form is also subjective in being a version of wiserefelective subjectuvusn, the considered moral judgment that overrides mere wishes and tases.It however is itself objective in being [1] univesral, for everyone and [2] equitable.
Others might endorse one or the other component, but nevertheless both forms or my combined form establish morality as binding.
Its public openess stems from how one views consequences for sentient beings and the environment.To oppose it others depend on - consequences.
It is thus teleological and utilitarian .Yet, it endorses the categorical imperative, so a measure of deontology forms part of it, and rules and virtues stem from it.
It is hedonistic like Epicureanism-refined,
It is thus ecletic.
What ethic do you endorse?
We depend on our moral sense that we have to refine. It is an evolutionary product. We discern glimmers of morality in other anismals.
With Paul Kurtz, I plead for a planetary ethic- concern for all humanity, not just the "tribe."
Theistic ethics is just simple subjectivism, what misanthropes just made up in large part from their tastes and whims. It is egregious.
Thus it does no boon to claim that God ontologically ensures it! And to claim in order to overcome the Euthyprho, as Aquinas so attempts by maintaining that God's nature is good begs the question thereof. God speaks with a forked tongue-lo, the many contradictory theistic moralites!
In the hands of Lord Russell and others, it can be a positive boon.
Should theists use reason and facts for the good of people, then they are implicit humanists; we don't thus depend on theism for morality at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)