Great question! Taking me back to my high school apologetics days.
-
-
Replying to @csilverandgold @TheSquaredNerd and
I assume a moral standard exists in the world objectively. However, I recognize, in a sort of Kantian sense, I have imperfect access...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold @TheSquaredNerd and
By what imperfect means do I have access to the objective moral standard? Essentially, empathy. If I think a given act causes suffering...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold @TheSquaredNerd and
And I would not want to undergo that suffering, I label that action "bad" or "immoral."
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold @TheSquaredNerd and
That moral sense, like taste, can be refined or degraded. So I do my best to keep my sense of empathy refined and sensitive..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold @TheSquaredNerd and
So I can have the best possible access to moral reality, moral truth, etc! /thread.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
My argument is, the objective standard, like all of reality, cannot be accessed directly by any of us.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold @TheSquaredNerd and
So ascertaining morality is a matter of having a sensitive empathy "instrument," + good facts on how suffering happens...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold @TheSquaredNerd and
+ wisdom to ascertaining right action (i.e. What action will reduce suffering, or maximize "flourishing" if you want a positive definition.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
So yeah, there's an unavoidable subjectivity but again, that's because direct access to reality was not given to us humans, sadly. :(
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.