/lit/ - Literature

>>13170588
First of all, objective =/= universal. Morality is objective, but not universal.

The objective part is that morality itself is a social strategy (a phenomenon of feelings+reason in individuals) which is employed by valuing agents to benefit their collective and consequently themselves (due to reciprocity).

The non-universality is a result of values (preferences) being a product of valuing agents. The specific nature of a valuing agent will shape their specific morality (and capacity for moral reasoning); since valuing agents are not universal (identical), neither can their specific application of morality be universal. There tends to be a good deal of overlap in the most critical preferences of valuing agents (assuming a collective which share similar natures), and this is the basis of morality -- not a universal standard like mathematics.

1. COULD preferences be universal? No, since the nature of preferring agents is not universal.

2. SHOULD certain behaviours be universally preferred? No, since that determination itself is a matter of preferences (which aren't universal).

3. Therefore the notion of universal preference is fallacious from any angle.