I think there is a pertinent distinction between agent-relative and ethical subjectivism. The former is able to point to murder and say it’s wrong. The latter can’t cause it has to account for the subjective feelings of the murderer and therefore no judgement can be made about a person killing somebody else. So the witness of a murder can’t judge the act as something to avoid (for themselves yes, but not as something the murderer should avoid even in any future applications) because the witness can’t say if it was wrong or right of the murderer. So however the murderer feels, he or she can keep on feeling without objection and interference. Sure the witness may speak out, but that would be a dishonest application of ethical subjectivism cause that would mean the murderer isn’t able to subjectively feel his or her own wants and needs. The witness can’t judge upon the murderer.
Agent-relative is able to take account for this whole scenario, but is also able to state: “That’s wrong”.
So therefore I find the explanatory power of agent-relative is also able to provide a metaphysical inclusion of a person stating: “That’s wrong when somebody murderers.” and it doesn’t rid that metaphysical fact of justice from the witnesses knowledge.
I’m not using the same metaphysics as you ladyattis quite possibly. I’m using the understanding of “being”. If somebody can point out not the knowledge of the NAP (as a principle it truly is epistemological), but also I’m wondering if their is any position somebody can take, even refraining from aggression, and then somebody can point that out and say - that person is adhering to the NAP. I wonder if that’s possible. If it can be shown as “being”, even the refraining, then I think such refraining or even taking active measures to avoid potentially aggressive events, such active and refraining measures can be seen as peaceful. And thus if peace is recognized then that means it’s “being”.
Hey! It’s zefreak ! Zefreak, did you manage to explain what is observable and what is not observable when dealing with humans ? Sorry I keep on asking that question, but, you see, it’s a good way to show how cheap your ‘philosophy’ is. Of course, you never answer.
Nope. Ethical subjectivism is just a childish, unfounded assertion. It doesn’t ‘undermine’ natural law. It just pretends natural law doesn’t exist.
Exactly. Economics and moral philosophy are two distinct topics. But hey, if there’s some sort of ‘subjective value’ when dealing with the price of potatoes then every moral consideration must be subjective as well !! It’s only logical…
I was just struck with an idea. [ The idea was clearly violating the NAP and has been properly jailed for its crimes ]
If we are to deduce that ethical subjectivism cannot establish objective good/bad and that all is a matter of the viewer then I find it much akin to a pseudo-‘might makes right’ theory. If the evaulations are normative then all that matters is who has the power to enact their moral requirements/decisions. Let us theorize that a thief comes to in with the intent to rob. Now you cannot say ‘what your doing is wrong and I am allowed to defend myself’, you would in fact say something much like ‘well I value my property though you yourself don’t seem to so we are at a dilemma here because I see what you are doing as bad and yet you see what you are doing is good…therefore…’
Someone who is not using aggression is adhering to the NAP, even if that person has never heard of the NAP, in the same way that someone driving 55 is following the 65 mph speed limit, even if that person does not know the speed limit.
That’s why I like agent-relativity as it retains individuality, and isn’t pacifist. It allows for justice and self-defense. It retains such moral realities.
So the NAP is a particular metaphysical fact. Might be a universal fact for human evolution to happen, but I don’t know the subjectivists are trying to figure out a way to break it’s walls down - so maybe I ought to wait. Maybe there is a instance in which the NAP doesn’t apply, not violated that’s different, I mean not applicable.
Well, ethical subjectivists are by no means pacifists. They don’t believe that violence is always wrong, to the point that even self-defense is wrong. If anything, they believe just the opposite, violence is never really wrong. It just ‘is’.
Not sure I’d go that far. It’s a description of how people should act, but not necessarily how they do act. So I’m really not sure what you’re getting at. People use aggression all the time. People speed all the time.
And I’m really not sure about the evolution thing. I think evolution would happen if every woman was raped repeatedly. All that’s really needed is one sperm cell to fertilize one egg in a high enough number of women, over the course of several generations, and you’ll have evolution.