- Mar 22, 2002
- Basic Beliefs
- Positive Atheist
I understand. It's just utterly unintuitive.The AntiChris said:In other words, according to Angra Mainyu, an action is moral/immoral independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions. It follows that in principle it is possible that a behaviour could be immoral even though no one in the universe thought it was.
It makes no sense to me.
When you say it makes no sense to you, do you mean that you do not understand what it means...
Sure, when people are unaware of an activity they have no opinion whatsoever. When they become aware they form an opinion. I'm not sure what you think you've shown. Nothing you've said requires that "permissibility or impermissibility (immorality, moral wrongness, or whatever word one likes better) is a property of....behaviour".But in the scenario, nobody thought it was immoral.
You've taken one particular interpretation of what I said which avoids the uncomfortable logical conclusion of your view. I'll be explicit.
Given Angra Mainyu's view that an action is moral/immoral independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, attitudes or opinions, it follows that in principle it is possible that a behaviour could be immoral even if everyone in the universe thought it was fine (not immoral).
Is this a problem for you, or does it conform with your intuitions?