Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
So eating is embedded in physical and biochemical facts with real consequences. If there is an inherent "teleology" to eating and drinking, not in the sense of a designed purpose but an intrinsic evolutionary aim, such as nutrition, health, survival and well-being, then I can actually miss the mark IF my aim is to stay alive and to flourish. If I consume Sugar Pops and Vodka all day and night, this activity is embedded in a set of biochemical facts and almost certain consequences independent of my preferences and my knowledge. Likewise, IF morality has an aim, a teleology, which seems even more likely, being a human, meaning-bearing, cultural institution, there could likewise be a set of facts embedding it and constraining moral choices. This would be because of morality's apparent inherent normativity, something that purely biological activities like eating would lack.
To use another analogy - it is an objective physical fact that pressure exerted by my legs on my bicycle pedals will cause my bike to move forward. It is a function of the physics of the bicycle and my physiology. That does not make my choice of which street to pedal down any less subjective. We select moral principles to protect/enhance the things we subjectively value/cherish. The fact that we subjectively value/cherish these things makes morality implicitly subjective - and inter-subjective in the context of a community. This is simply inescapable. I don't see how you can frame a cogent argument to refute this - and so far do not believe you have done so.
Comment