@nprofile1q... 2 doesn't exist ontologically until you describe it. morals are much the same. if there were no persons in the universe then what morals exist? you introduce moral actors by ascribing moral properties to them, which require a context to be qualified
> i don't think the concept of the universe applying morality in the same way for all people is farfetched
what does the universe say morally about homosexuality or putting ice cream in your back pocket? who speaks for the universe?
i mean, when you fall off a cliff, you can reason about physics or gravity up until the point that you die. what does moral reasoning do in a universal sense? "civilization"? the morals of that civilization depend on the civilization's values. one civilization ends, another begins, there need not be moral continuity between the two
> i don't think the concept of the universe applying morality in the same way for all people is farfetched
what does the universe say morally about homosexuality or putting ice cream in your back pocket? who speaks for the universe?
i mean, when you fall off a cliff, you can reason about physics or gravity up until the point that you die. what does moral reasoning do in a universal sense? "civilization"? the morals of that civilization depend on the civilization's values. one civilization ends, another begins, there need not be moral continuity between the two
1
