You entirely missed the point of what I said. Two different people can agree on an objective fact that a table is a table, but disagree on whether it’s a good looking table.
It is an objective fact that a harmful act harms someone. That one observer likes that outcome does not alter the objective moral weight of the act. Harmful acts are objectively wrong, regardless of preference.
From a basic empirical observation of the effects of harm, one can arrive at a moral system based on objective reasoning. In this way, ideology can be avoided.
The reality is that real world is far too complex to be understood with perfect accuracy. Therefore, everyone necessarily makes assumptions and simplifications leading them to see different options as being more harmful. What you’re describing is frankly an infantile understanding of how empirical observation works.
Will me being infantile stop humans from hurting each other? If not, why would I be motivated to change?
Will me growing up (to stop being infantile) get in the way of my refraining from hurting others? If yes, why would I be motivated to change?
In my infantile state, I can clearly see that - even in a complex world - harming other living beings is wrong. I don’t like being harmed, so why would they like being harmed?
Maybe you need ideology to simplify the world. But that doesn’t mean that I require it. That’s part of the complex world you assert we live in, yes?
You’ve just explained your simplistic ideology in this thread, and you’re not even capable of understanding why its simplistic when it’s explained to you.
You have failed to show that it is an ideology. You have explained that you disagree with it, but that’s not the same thing.
It’s an empirical fact that living beings don’t like being hurt. Therefore, it avoiding hurt is good. That’s not an ideology, it’s reasoning based on observable facts. An ideological position would be “we need to hurt living beings to further our interests”. The ideological position involves those interests.
Seeing all living beings as equal (e.g. in terms of prioritising not harming them, just as I would prefer not to be harmed or to harm myself) is about not having an interest, and therefore is clearly not ideological.
I’ve explained to you what an ideology is repeatedly, you seem incapable of understanding what you’re being told. The human brain is not capable of holding the entire complexity of the material reality, and therefore it must rely on abstractions and simplifications to do reasoning. You, just like everyone else, have biases and make simplifications leading you to understand things in the specific way that you do. This signifies your particular ideology.
There are plenty of cases where people try to use empirical evidence with best intentions resulting in great harm being done as a result. Having good intentions is not an ideology, it’s an aspiration. The world view that guides your actions that you put into practice to try to achieve the goals that you believe to be desirable are what your actual ideology is.
There is no such thing as objective morality. One cannot observe that “harmful acts are objectively wrong”. The “wrongness” and “rightness” of an action aren’t observable, measurable or even well defined properties. It is possible to measure the duration of an action, the energy transformations of the action, the location of an action, ect, but not the morality of an action. What units would you even measure it in? Or is morality a dimensionless property?
From a basic empirical observation of the effects of harm, one can arrive at a moral system based on objective reasoning.
Is this objective moral system utilitarian? Deontological? There is no “objective” argument as to why morality should be either.
How would your objective moral system weigh against incommensurate harms? Maybe its possible to compare the intensities of 2 different physical pains, but how would you compare physical pain with emotional pain? What about weighing pain between different people?
In this way, ideology can be avoided.
The obsession with being “non-ideological” and reducing everything to base science, also known as “positivism” is also an ideology.
Two different people can disagree on whether a table is a table: this does not alter objective fact.
You entirely missed the point of what I said. Two different people can agree on an objective fact that a table is a table, but disagree on whether it’s a good looking table.
It is an objective fact that a harmful act harms someone. That one observer likes that outcome does not alter the objective moral weight of the act. Harmful acts are objectively wrong, regardless of preference.
From a basic empirical observation of the effects of harm, one can arrive at a moral system based on objective reasoning. In this way, ideology can be avoided.
The reality is that real world is far too complex to be understood with perfect accuracy. Therefore, everyone necessarily makes assumptions and simplifications leading them to see different options as being more harmful. What you’re describing is frankly an infantile understanding of how empirical observation works.
Will me being infantile stop humans from hurting each other? If not, why would I be motivated to change?
Will me growing up (to stop being infantile) get in the way of my refraining from hurting others? If yes, why would I be motivated to change?
In my infantile state, I can clearly see that - even in a complex world - harming other living beings is wrong. I don’t like being harmed, so why would they like being harmed?
Maybe you need ideology to simplify the world. But that doesn’t mean that I require it. That’s part of the complex world you assert we live in, yes?
You’ve just explained your simplistic ideology in this thread, and you’re not even capable of understanding why its simplistic when it’s explained to you.
You have failed to show that it is an ideology. You have explained that you disagree with it, but that’s not the same thing.
It’s an empirical fact that living beings don’t like being hurt. Therefore, it avoiding hurt is good. That’s not an ideology, it’s reasoning based on observable facts. An ideological position would be “we need to hurt living beings to further our interests”. The ideological position involves those interests.
Seeing all living beings as equal (e.g. in terms of prioritising not harming them, just as I would prefer not to be harmed or to harm myself) is about not having an interest, and therefore is clearly not ideological.
I’ve explained to you what an ideology is repeatedly, you seem incapable of understanding what you’re being told. The human brain is not capable of holding the entire complexity of the material reality, and therefore it must rely on abstractions and simplifications to do reasoning. You, just like everyone else, have biases and make simplifications leading you to understand things in the specific way that you do. This signifies your particular ideology.
There are plenty of cases where people try to use empirical evidence with best intentions resulting in great harm being done as a result. Having good intentions is not an ideology, it’s an aspiration. The world view that guides your actions that you put into practice to try to achieve the goals that you believe to be desirable are what your actual ideology is.
I don’t understand anything. Therefore I have no ideology.
There is no such thing as objective morality. One cannot observe that “harmful acts are objectively wrong”. The “wrongness” and “rightness” of an action aren’t observable, measurable or even well defined properties. It is possible to measure the duration of an action, the energy transformations of the action, the location of an action, ect, but not the morality of an action. What units would you even measure it in? Or is morality a dimensionless property?
The obsession with being “non-ideological” and reducing everything to base science, also known as “positivism” is also an ideology.