Nathan Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 I think there is a problem with one of the arguments you made in this episode. You said there is a performative contradiction in saying "There is no such thing as objective morality." Unless you're synonomizing "morality" with "upb" which itself is a confusing comparison since I thought UPB was a means of testing the consistency of moral theories, then there's a problem with this. When you say there is no such thing as objective morality, I don't see the contradiction, at least not very clearly. If I say that morality is a set of rules for prescribed or preferred behavior, then perhaps when saying there is no such thing as preferred behavior, I can see the contradiction there. You asked in the podcast when you got to this point: "Ok does truth have something to do with morality?" But in part two you said that truth cannot be universally preferable behavior, because truth may be dangerous at times. So that doesn't work. I'm having a tough time with this one argument. Again, I'm not having a tough time seeing the performative contradiction of "There is no such thing as universally preferable behavior." That is clear to me. My problem is with "There is no such thing as objective morality." What does morality have to do with preferring truth over falsehood, that reason is the preferred method for determining truth from falsehood, that existence exists? I don't see the performative contradiction there, unless you equate morality with universally preferable behavior. When talking about freedom to others, I am not sure of how to respond to someone that says "there is no such thing as objective morality". It's a frustrating response to get because of the above issue.
Recommended Posts