This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
What vague, barely informative mush. And 4 in particular is funny, as it involves Law pivoting on his heel and going from 'This is what humanists believe' to 'Uh, well some of them believe this'. 4 and 5 suffice to eliminate Jerry Coyne, and I bet if that's recognized the response will be 'oops, back to the drawing board.'
"Most Humanists believe that actions can be objectively morally right or wrong."I disagree with the term 'objectively'. What makes morals objective is a standard that is visible to all. This implies that there is some universal 'code of ethics' that we can all consult to find what is right in a given moral situation. To my knowledge, no such code exists. What most people claim to be an objective moral fact is really nothing more than what the FEEL to be true. They can't show you the standard.
Just to clear it up, im-skeptical, are you claiming knowledge that no such code exist? Or are you claiming lack of knowledge about the existence of universal code of ethics?Wrt. metaethics - do you feel entitled to judge alternative ethical standards?
I'm not judging anybody's ethics. But I'm pretty sure there is no universal code of ethics. If you disagree, please show it to me.And I'm not referring to some feeling you have that torturing babies is wrong. I'm talking about a definitive standard that applies for all people and all situations in all times and cultures.
The operative word here is, 'universal', " ... a definitive standard that applies for all people and all situations in all times and cultures."
Post a Comment