Ethical subjectivism requires a mind that can see issues from different perspectives.

Thank you

Derek Parfit, an Oxford scholar whom some regard as one of the most brilliant philosophers of our time (and I so regard him), produced a massive work on ethics titled On What Matters. This three -volume work covers a lot of ground, but one of its main claims is that morality is objective, and we can and do know MORAL TRUTHS but not because moral judgments describe some fact. Indeed, moral judgments do not describe anything in the external world, nor do they refer to our own feelings. There are no mystical moral or normative entities. Nonetheless, moral judgments express objective truths. Parfit’s solution? Ethics is analogous to mathematics. There are mathematical truths even though, on Parfit’s view, there are no such things as an ideal equation 2 + 2 = 4 existing somewhere in Plato’s heaven. Similarly, we have objectively valid moral reasons for not inflicting pain gratuitously even though there are no mystical moral entities to which we make reference when we declare, “Inflicting pain gratuitously is morally wrong.” To quote Parfit, “Like numbers and logical truths … normative properties and truths have no ontological status” (On What Matters, vol. 2, p. 487). Parfit’s proposed solution is ingenious because it avoids the troublesome issues presented when we tie moral judgments to facts about the world (or facts about our feelings). However, ingenuity does not ensure that a theory is right. Parfit provides explanation of how we know ethical truths, by offering numerous examples where he maintains we clearly have a decisive reason for doing X rather than Y.

@PHILOnotes

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for sharing this information with us!

@samadams1998

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps I misunderstood, but it doesn’t sound like he’s really saying much at all, it sounds like he just made up some rules and declared them as objective. If someone is born with naturally low empathy and finds themselves attracted to children, this could very well lead them to a preference of abusing children. I’m sure there are plenty of child predators who have never been caught, they have little empathy and so the child suffering brings them no pain, and they use the child for pleasure, and toss it aside, and are never punished or have any negative ramifications, the predator had no reason to hold any other preference or take any other path. What equation would Parfit use to say what he did was objectively wrong? Please keep in mind I am in no way advocating for or saying child abuse is okay, obviously, I’m simply asking for a justification under your/Parfits system.

🎉❤️ Thanks

@PHILOnotes

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching and keep learning! Cheers!

please add CC!