>>29293403
You just completely ignore context and insert your own meaning instead? If I say:
>the following is my subjective, personal moral opinion: rape is wrong
You will make that to mean:
>the following is my subjective, personal moral opinion: rape is objectively wrong
If so, you're just being illogical. No, not every moral claim appeals to an objective moral truth. Here is the breakdown:
Moral Realism: there are objective moral facts.
Moral Anti-Realism: there are no objective moral facts.
The latter position is broken into three positions:
1. Non-cognitivism: moral claims are not even truth apt, i.e., to say "rape is wrong" is to say "boo rape" or "don't rape", or "I don't like rape". It has no true or false value.
2. Error Theory/ Moral Nihilism (seemingly your position): moral claims are made under the false assumption that there are moral facts; there are no moral facts, therefore all moral claims are FALSE.
3. Moral Relativism: there are moral facts, but they are not stance independent; they are only "true" or "false" relative to some other marker, like a GOAL. That is my position.
IF you want to be good at golf, then it is GOOD to practice and BAD to not practice. I want humanity to flourish, therefore YOU are bad because of your shitty nature. What do I mean by "flourish"? That's a different discussion - in any case, it is not an "objective" morality, because it does not assert that there are any STANCE-INDEPENDENT moral facts. Regardless of whether or not you claim otherwise.
