>>29190
Nobody is telling you not to be selfish here. It would again simply be for conforming and contributing to your own species (which would be the evolutionary reason for morals) as this would help push evolution forward but again we're assuming that life > non-life in this context.
it would be subjective as it doesn't reflect the real world. An objective nature is consistent and does not change independent of perception. If we have two different observers which perceive a stimulus differently than the perception itself is subjective. The basis for this perception may, in itself, be objective if we can measure all parameters and explain the perception, but this perception is still subjective because the observers perceive differently which would contradict the theoretical idea that the object itself is unaffected by perception.
IDFK im making all this shit up on the spot and you're making me defend a position I disagree with 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
i think that if determinism, then believing that we have free will still matters as if we have an pedophile who keeps raping children, we shouldnt let them keep doing that because these children suffer, get traumatized, and many of them will proceed to continue hwrming themselves or others, and its a huge propagation reaction of distrust and disturbance which, in the pragmatic viewpoint, ruins society which would be the opposite goal.
And yes of morals are subjective, then anything becomes a valid moralistic system and from this anyone can do anything. Does that mean we should? I've heard pleeeeenty of people answer that question but idk how to defend that position because i dont agree with morals being subjective nor do I agree that free will does not exist.
