Originally posted by seer
View Post
This still is no more an assertion, with no basis in fact or reality.
It is not true
nor can you show it to be true.
It is a fiction, the very thing you chided us for.
Of course your moral theory is meaningless, since we are ultimately meaningless.
Ethical theories make statements with semantic content, and thus they have meaning on my worldview. Something doesn't need to be eternal to have meaning. What you wrote is, once again, as impossible as saying that Cell Theory is meaningless unless God exists. That's absurd since Cell Theory has meaning, insofar as it makes claims (with semantic content, where those claims address certain questions/issues.
No, I'm speaking of subjective in that it is mind dependent. And which moral theory to accept is certainly subjective.
In meta-ethics, when discussing moral objectivism/moral subjectivism, the term "subjective" deals with the truth-conditions for moral statements, moral beliefs, etc. (or in virtue or what moral statements, moral beliefs, etc. are true or false), not how one comes to reach those moral statements, moral beliefs, etc.
The issue isn't whether the theory is mind-dependent, seer. It's instead whether the things in virtue of which the theory's statements are truth or false, are mind-dependent. Or more precisely: whether the statement/theory is true or false in virtue of attitudes/opinions. So, you again committed a use/mention mistake, confusing the statement/theory to that which the statement/theory refers.
So you invent a moral theory, that has no basis in fact or reality, and call it objective. I see that is how the game is played.
Divine command theory is a form of moral subjectivism. You've been shown this, and explained to you why that is. Deal with it, without the nonsense tactics from you that I noted above. So if, in the future, you act like it hasn't been explained to you why divine command theory is a form of moral subjectivism, then I'll take you to be acting in bad faith.
Comment