partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,626
- 1,047
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
You're absolutely right. I started out trying to follow this thread, but eventually it got away from me. So bear with me if I miss the broader context from time to time.That you would ask me this question tells me you haven't read my exchange with @durangodawood back to it's beginning.
Yes, in the case of:Consider:
X + 2 = 4
That X is equal to 2 is contingent on the other numbers being what they are, so X isn't objectively equal to 2, it's relative or subjective. That's silly.
X + 2 = 4 it can be determined that X is indeed equal to 2. But outside of that equation "X" has no specific value at all. Therefore the numeric value of "X" is relative to the context.
If all we have is X + Y = Z then assigning a value to "X" is impossible. In fact independent of the other variables it has no numeric value at all.
That's the same way it is with morality. If one argues, as o_mlly just did, that good and bad are dependent upon their correlation with "human flourishing", then good and bad become "relative" to that metric.
Just as "X" has no intrinsic value of its own, human acts have no intrinsic value either.
The fact that one has to add a metric to human acts in order to determine their value, means that the value isn't intrinsic to the act itself.
Upvote
0