/lit/ - Literature

>>16541024
>You seem to both discredit gut feelings in one sentence and give them epistemic primacy in another
Not really, what I meant is that many people don't approach morality by trying to figure out what's genuinely good and assuming that there's an objective morality that can be ascertained, but rather through their unevaluated prejudices and wishes which cloud their judgement.
>Immediate moral feelings differ
Not really, at least not among the simplest things like raping and murdering a child.
Basic morality is pretty much the same across all cultures.
There are of course cases where some moral proposition is viewed basic by some and non basic by others. People's judgement on what is basic in morality can be faulty, just like in mathematics. For a long time people thought the fact that all continuous functions are differentiable was obviously true until through a dialectic process, by evaluating their assumptions they figured out that's not necessarily true.
>The Greeks had no issue with slavery, pederasty and infant exposure
These are all very complex behavioral patterns on which our intuition of morality is not basic and depends deeply on our circumstances and what these things actually entail.
I don't think slavery is inherently wrong. I think the current view that slavery is wrong did not come through careful evaluation of what is moral but rather rash baseless judgements based on imagined facts which are not necessarily true.
>Medieval Christiansthoughthe torture of Jews and children was appropriate judicial conduct
That can be understood by moral by pretty much everyone if you accepted the propositions that this judgement is based on.
Keep in mind that moral propositions are not all a priori. When they relate to our lives they depend deeply on our understanding of our world, our actions and what effect they have.
Under the medieval christian worldview it could have been internally moral to torture jews and children although it's not necessarily objectively moral.
>different extremely strong feelings on a particular issue
The issues are always complex ones. On basic ones like murdering, stealing and raping (all else being equal) pretty much everyone agrees. But even if they did, that's not a defeater for my claim. Existence of discord does not disprove objectivity, just like faulty theorems in mathematics do not disprove maths is objective. However, the strong agreement among all cultures on the basic moral truths offers strong support for my belief that morality is objective, though it's not the main reason why I believe it's objective.
>In other words,no matter how adept our moral reasoning, we are depending on axioms that we can't agree on.
There will always be stupid people.There is never complete agreement in everything, even the most objective fields like math and physics. People disagree over whether we should accept the axiom of choice, etc, they disagree over whether the earth is flat.That doesn't imply theyaren't objective.

>>15473018
Logic is definitely not my highest value. Sure, I think being logical is very important when constructing a philosophical theory but for me it doesn't go beyond that. So no, I haven't "clicked".

>>15209168
It hasn't. All proofs so far have been
1. circular
2. wrong
If the problem asks you to prove some statement, you can't just assume the obviously stronger form of the statement and call it a proof.
>>15209186
seething mathlet