>>27542>not phantoms.hur
atheists often make the mistake of thinking just because it takes minds to understand ethical propositions, that this means one must be a moral subjectivist by definition.
the way they come to this conclusion is by way of equivocation, at least with the philosophical literature on the subject. Many atheist philosophers hold to some form of objective morality, even though they accept that moral discords can only happen due to minds.
how do they manage this? all philosophers recognize the propositions made about morality are mind dependant, but that does does not make them moral subjectivists. how so? the reason is because, this is not what is meant by subjectivism in ethics.
subjectivism, in ethics, is the view that moral propositions are only ever descriptions of our own mental states.
therefore, when someone says child abuse is wrong, they are only describing what they think themselves about child abuse.
these mental states do not correspond to how things really are in any way. moral objectivists admit that their moral views are mind dependant in terms of knowing, and articulating them. but they hold that they are knowing something about the world as it really is.
there are objectivists, that is to say, moral realists, who describe themselves as naturalists, and non-naturalists within the atheist community.
they've mistaken ethical epistemology with ethical ontology.
this happens when people conflate how we know something, with the objectivity of the thing being known.
ALL truths depend on minds to be known and articulated.
if you people were to be consistent with this view, then all truths, dependant on minds, would be subjective aswell.
that would be everything we think to be true, not just ethical propositions, but scientific propositions, mathematic propositions, and wider philosophical propositions as well.
the delicious irony of course, is that if they are right, they are not actually right at all.
