Observations may be objective, but the values are always subjective. Two different people can look at the same set of facts and come to entirely different conclusions of what constitutes desirable actions based on their world view.
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. It’s also objectively true, because in terms of cosmological time, the consequences of all living beings become equal.
I disagree. These values are based on objective observations.
Observations may be objective, but the values are always subjective. Two different people can look at the same set of facts and come to entirely different conclusions of what constitutes desirable actions based on their world view.
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. It’s also objectively true, because in terms of cosmological time, the consequences of all living beings become equal.
Objective observations made by what apparatus?
An absolute God?
The idea that objectivity requires a God figure would seem to me to be Berkeleyan idealism.