#ethics#morality#meta
- Subjectivism vs Objectivism vs Others
- This is the basis of the conflict.
- (By the way, there is no answer.)
- As more specific points,
- Q. Does morality exist?
- The concept of “existence” itself is quite ambiguous, a question of ontology.
- Based on my current phenomenology-based thinking, I thought that norms such as “do not kill people” also “exist” to the same extent as a recognized apple.
- In the first place, both objects and norms are things that are recognized, and the only difference is the source (?) of recognition, whether it is mass or information.
- If we define only things that are recognized as existing as “existing” based on mass as the source of recognition, norms will not “exist”, well, that depends on the definition.
- Chapter 3 Non-realism
- Assuming it doesn’t exist, what do we do? That’s the question.
- Impression
- As a difficulty in discussing meta-ethics, there seems to be a paradox that ethical judgment is necessary to consider what should be done ethically.
- For example, there is a question of “how should we treat ethics assuming non-realism”, and it contradicts because there is some ethical basis for the answer.
- I got the impression that the basis there is often written in ambiguous emotions.
- Or rather, I feel like there is no other basis.
- The distinction between “facts” and “norms” in ethics is interesting.
- It’s like organizing what is considered “good” in society and thinking about the “true” good as it is in the current state.