= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Xodarap comments on Arguments Against Speciesism - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (474)
If you believe sole justification for a moral proposition is that you think it's intuitively correct, then no one is ever wrong, and these types of articles are rather pointless, no?
I'm a moral anti-realist. I don't think there's a "true objective" ethics out there written into the fabric of the Universe for us to discover.
That doesn't mean there is no such thing as morals, or that debating them is pointless. Morals are part of what we are and we perceive them as moral intuitions. Because we (humans) are very similar to one another, our moral intuition are also fairly similar, and so it makes sense to discuss morals, because we can influence one another, change our minds, better understand each other, and come to agreement or trade values.
Nobody is ever "right" or "wrong" about morals. You can only be right or wrong about questions of fact, and the only factual, empirical thing about morals is what moral intuitions some particular person has at a point in time.