Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
That’s Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty (had to google- I thought we might be closer to Kant and Foucault). I’ve listened to those guys and I’ve read Waking Up.
It seems like if morality equals well-being it’s going to be subjective depending on whose well-being.
For an atheist Harris gets pretty deep into woo when he starts up on enlightenment and meditation.
The justification part has to be loaded with subjective reasoning.
I don’t get how your ideas about this differ from elph’s or anyone’s really.
Sometimes I find your writing cryptic. I need **** spelled out to get it.
|
I'll try and find a video for you that will do a better job of explaining it than I can.
I don't disagree that justifcation has to be loaded with subjective reasoning, but that's not in conflict with what I'm saying.
If you approach morality the way I do there are truths within it. If I am faced with a situation where I either kill or be killed, and I kill, that doesn't make killing moral all of a sudden, it's justifiable though. If we agree that morality is based on well-being killing another person goes against well-being.
What use is morality to us if it's not consistent? If everyone can just feel however they want, what's the point of the discussion? I never said Elph was wrong, I only said I disagree. It's a complicated subject, and I'm not well educated in moral philosophy. I'm arguing on behalf of the things I've heard that make the most sense to me.