Is there any argument that proves that an objective moral can exist, other than functionalism?
And in that case, what is the "right" moral code to follow? How can we know?
>>1165624
only way I can see morality being "objective" is if karma was an actual thing like gravity
No, all value-systems are axiomatic in nature and dependent upon the desires of a particular agent.
So assume we prove that a set of morals is "objective"... then what? What would actually be different if the same set of morals were relative/subjective?
people are so happy to question objective morals but they're a lot less happy with questions about why we "should" believe something that's true.
Why care whether something exists objectively? Why care whether we can know it or not? These are norms too you know.
>>1165624
Aristotelian ethics
The only moral code I can follow is what my mind tells me is correct based off of my own social programming.
Arguing about anything beyond this is a complete waste of time.
If a situation forces me to act out of my moral code: boohoo.
>>1166074
>Why care whether something exists objectively? Why care whether we can know it or not?
Practical applications?
