zeitvox replied to your post: I am interested in your recent post “God Would Definitely be Responsible for Evil”. I’m interested in your argument about objective moralities and social convention. I’ve also never heard of nihilism being brought to the table when discussing morality. Could you discuss these? Thanks in advance.
“Objective”, “subjective”… where do these determinations come from? If ethics/morality anterior, wouldn’t it be odd to cut the tissue along these lines?
Objective and relative are determinations that come from social convention. Social convention can be regarded as a non-fallacious ad populum argument in a sense. Most people say that murdering a child is wrong; therefore, the murder of a child is objectively wrong. Thus, even if there is someone or an insignificant minority that finds the murder of children acceptable, child murder would be considered objectively wrong via social convention. I don’t think morality is anterior—as in further away from the stem. Morality is the stem; objective and relative can be considered anterior, but the leaves of a flower are also anterior; however, that doesn’t imply that the leaves aren’t a part of the flower. There are objective rights and wrongs and there are relative rights and wrongs. I find that to be pretty clear. Therefore, it isn’t strange to cut the tissue along these lines.