Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
The way I see things, there is nothing objective about morality because it is based on cultural principles, and these vary from place to place and through time as well.
This position is called Cultural Relativism and it has a number of damning consequences:
I don’t know the term you mentioned so I’ll be talking about the points you made, not the term itself.
So, I don’t need morality to condemn the human suffering that slavery, female genital mutilation, or genocide creates. I don’t need a moral lens for this, just a practical one – out of solidarity, for freedom, equity, equality etc, for everyone on this planet. This is why it’s easy for me to justify any fight for social justice. These fights are by default systemic so against the status quo. I hope it is clear why I don’t need an objective moral truth.
I would like to ask you, when you say morality is objective who defines it and what is it?
So your suggestion is that we can keep our moral judgments out of practical considerations without espousing the objective truth of moral facts? This would lead one to act as though they believed in objective moral truths. Which is fine! It would be like thinking numbers don’t exist (perhaps because you don’t believe non-physical/abstract entities exist) but acting as though numbers exist because it is useful to do so. I don’t hold that view, but I can see your perspective.
The question of who defines morality is potentially a category error. We don’t ask who defines descriptive facts about the world. The Earth is round, that is a fact, and its truth does not depend on anyone’s opinion. It is our job to develop ways to figure out whether it is true. Similarly, there are normative facts about morality and aesthetics. Some things are morally or aesthetically good, and it is our job to determine whether it is good.
Admittedly, we have had more success with descriptive facts than with normative facts.
I was not satisfied by my previous answer, so I thought of deleting it and giving it another try.
Not at all. I would be extremely hesitant to suggest something on this topic, for all people. In a way, this is the reason why I talked about how I see things on a personal level, specifically.
About the category error, once more I don’t know the terms you use, so I will answer from what I understand by the way you describe them.
My question was related to a notion (objective morality), and not a physical object (i.e. a rock). Notions exist - to my understanding - because we use language, so we should be able to define them. An object like a rock, is there even if language is not used. So I don’t see where the category error could be.
Finally, I will rephrase my 2-part question for clarity, because only half of it got kind of answered:
Since you claim that morality is objective I would assume that you would be capable of tracing where this objectivity comes from, how it emerged, and how it stays that way. I’m not too sure how to phrase this as a question, but it’s something along those lines.
Also, if it were objective for all people, I imagine we would all know its content. But, for example, the terms morally good & morally bad even tho they are commonly used in modern languages, they often have different content. So, it seems clear to me that the terms morally good and bad are not objective. So which morality is objective? Please, describe the content of this notion you claim to be objective.
deleted by creator