Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
This is a bit meta, but I believe morality is objective. Actions have objective moral worth; epistemological disagreements about how we know the moral value of an action are irrelevant to the objectivity of goodness/badness itself.
I agree that some things can be objectively immoral, but I think there’s a lot of grey/subjective areas too.
Is it objectively immoral to not spend 100% of your free time helping others?
What about choosing to have kids instead of adopting?
Turning someone’s life support machine off after they’ve been declared braindead?
Killing a serial killer in an act of self defense?
I can see your perspective, but I would argue that these are epistemological grey areas, not moral ones. Again, just because we don’t know whether something is true/false or good/bad doesn’t change the objective value of the fact.
Of course, for non-normative facts about the world, we have the scientific method to help us to move toward the truth. (Note here that the epistemological problem reappears, albeit in a lesser form, as we cannot be sure whether science has reached the truth; the scientific method is always open to new and contradictory empirical evidence.) Recall, however, that most of human history lies before science. Left to our own observations, we believed in such theories as geocentrism and the four humors. Hopefully ethics and aesthetics will reach a science for determining the objective value of normative facts.
So you kinda agree that even if morals objectively exists that we can’t measure them with reasonable precision?
We’d have to have a strong grasp on the hard problem of consciousness. So there is no good reason to espouse objective morality in this day in age.
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t say we have no way of knowing, just that we disagree (often on edge cases). But people way smarter than me spend their lives thinking about these things and form convincing arguments is support of definitive answers.
To draw a parallel, most of human history we observed the world and reached conclusions. Mostly we were wrong but sometimes we came pretty close. Then we discovered the scientific method, which allows us to move closer to the truth over time. (Note, though, that the epistemological worry reappears, albeit in lesser form, as the scientific method must always be amendable to new empirical evidence that contradicts highly confirmed theories.) My hope is that philosophy will discover a science of normative facts, giving us an agreed upon method for determining moral and aesthetic value.