In another thread, now closed, I said this: "the fact that we have no logical ground for any moral rule is what tells us our rules are subjective."
Purple Dawn said this:
Maybe someday you'll expound on that thought and actually show that there is no logical ground for any moral rule.
Here's my idea: When speaking of moral rules, we might say they are subjective in the sense that they have no logical grounds. In other words, no action can be proved to be either morally right or morally wrong.
Somebody might say, we should treat others as we want to be treated.
Why should we do that?
There is no answer to "why" that does not beg the question. Any answer given is yet another ungrounded moral idea. We might say, "we should do so because in the long run it is good for everyone."
So we have yet another rule: We should do that which in the long run is good for everyone.
Why?
No reason. All we can say in reply is,"We should do that which in the long run is good for everyone because it is the right thing to do." In other words, we beg the question.
There might be some confusion over the meaning of the word "subjective"--which would be helpful to discuss. For all I know, I might be using it eccentrically.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-12-2006 04:28 PM
™ Version 4.2