Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
I have had this discussion with you before. Some things are simply a priori true. If "a priori" and "assertion" as synonymous to you, then the a priori mathematical law of identity (1 = 1) and the logical law of non contradiction (a thing cannot be and not be in the same place, same say and at the same time) are also "merely assertions." That each thing seeks/sees its own existence as a good is one of those truths, and for the same reason the law of non contradiction is: its negation is simply logically inconsistent, since seeking non existence eliminates all possibility of goodness or ill. Similarly, each sentient being seeks its own happiness. This is, again, apriori true by the very definition of the words. It is practically a tautology. For you to deny these things is for you to assert that you can see your own nonexistence as a "good" (which is absurd on its face), and that you can see unhappiness as a good, which is (again) absurd on its face.
This has been your argument from the outset, Seer. Every time we discuss subjective morality, your claim is that it is not real - it is not meaningful - because it is not universal/absolute/eternal. You have even attempted to associate it with mathematics to try to make your case, without ever successfully defending that association. If you have now reversed all of that, then your argument that morality that is subjective is meaningless fails. If humans can invent meaning, can choose purpose, can derive value, then subjective morality is rooted in reality, is actual, and has meaning. It is not universal, absolute, or eternal, nor does it need to be. It is a form of preference, but different in kind/import than food preferences. It is not whimscal, it is considered, grounded, and rational.
Just for you:
Comment