Originally posted by seer
View Post
I have found that view to be circular, so I no longer hold it. Morality is indeed a form of "preference." If it is reasoned, it should be preference rooted in reality and fact - but a moral statement is not itself a "fact." It is an expression of how a person believes action OUGHT to proceed in order for it to be called "good." But "good" is a value judgment - it is subjective. Ergo, morality is intrinsically subjective. That model appears to align perfectly with what I see around myself every day. So far, I have not found a reason to shift that view. It is possible I will find that reason in these discussions, but I have to admit I consider that unlikely.
As for the link between a priori truths (like existence and happiness), I have outlined my reasoning several times, acknowledged I used "logical" sloppily, and clarified the reasoning strategy I use to arrive at a moral code. I understand you do not accept it. From my side, I do not see where you have shown it to be flawed, so I will continue to use it until such time as it is shown to be faulty. I'm sure you fell much the same about your world ethical process: until someone shows it to be flawed, you are not going to abandon it.
Comment