From: Terry Donaghe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>---Samael <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Do you honestly believe in objective, universal standards of right
>and wrong? If so, please state where objective universal standards of
>right and wrong come from and what makes them so. You may well
>revolutionise a large chunk of philosophy (I doubt it, but I'd love to be
>Samael, please explain how you can, in good faith, follow a philosophy
>which can be construed to justify anything. Your subjectivist
>philosophy implies that it may, under certain circumstances, be
>morally okey dokey to nuke a newborn in a microwave. Hey, there's no
>wrong or right! We can do anything!
And we have to live with the consequences. If I microwave a baby, people are liable to get extremely upset at me and wreak horrible revenge. Also, most people have no desire to microwave babies (I certianly don't. Not even the noisy ones).
Can you tell me how I can, in good faith, follow a moral code when I believe
there is no logical reason to do so?
Especially when nobody has yet even managed to come up with a logical objection to rape (which pretty much everyone on the planet admits is an abbhorence (sic)).
>I'm not a philosopher and I have no grand justification of objectivism
>other than the fact that your subjectivism can justify all of what
>most of us consider evil in the world - genocide, murder, rape, child
>abuse, etc etc.
It doesn't justify anything. Justification occurs when people attempt to say why what they did fits with a particular moral view.
I don't have a moral view, I have an aesthetic view (I like technological advance, I dislike rape, etc.) Anything I do fits into this aesthetic framework. I just don't all it 'moral' and then say that everyone else should do the same thing as me because it's "right" (whatever that means).