You're viewing part of a thread.
Can you explain how the continued mistreatment and exploitation of animals is moral?
Would you make the same claim if this were instead some trans rights debate and I claimed supporting trans people is the morally correct position even if you are certainly Cis and do not know a single trans person?
It's not a 1:1 analogy for sure, but I think it captures a similar idea
I'm denying the existence of objective moral facts in a tongue-in-cheek fashion not calling into question any particular one.
Ah I got ya. To be honest I'm not very well read on the topic, but I do believe there are such instances.
What is the reasoning in there not being an objective moral position on anything?
What would it mean for there to be objective moral facts? It would mean that there are true moral statements that live outside of every cultural framework in some sort of transcendent manner, and to arrive at those moral facts would require an individual be able to step out of their subjective, culturally inculcated existence. And as well all know, subjectivity is not the sort of thing you can just step out of.
When you start talking about objective moral facts, you can start talking about societies that fail to adhere to those moral facts as being deficient. And from there it's a quick hop skip and jump to genocide. Which is how this has played out historically.
I can see the the slippery slope consequences you describe coming into play, but I struggle to see how that negates some facts such as "Rape is morally wrong"
You and I both believe that earnestly and full-throatedly, but we are not acultural objective knowers.