Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
what is the point of a realist approach to ethics?
that's the only viewpoint from which this whole tiresome matter of "knowing" about some fiction called "objective reality" so that a community can agree not to do certain things (institute an ethics) makes any sense.
an ethics follows from a way of talking about an agreement made by a community to not do certain things.
typically because people who like ethical discourse are nervous about the ability of people who are not themselves to adhere to limitations based on a mere agreement, they like to route what is agreed to through some other register. sometimes through the fiction of "objective reality"---other times through some god-fiction.
|
I think most of us struggle with this idea of objective reality vs. subjective perspectives. We'd like to think there is a Reality "out there" and we'd like to think we can get to it if we try hard enough. We'd like to think we can master it and therefore master our destinies. Of course, if it were so easy, we'd all be gods.
This "objectivity" vs. "subjectivity" is essentially two sides of the same coin, which is Reality. Reality is there whether you can see it or not. Most of us are incapable of seeing it because there are too many distractions, too many filters, and most of us are steeped in delusion. We don't know how to flip the coin, and even if we find out how, there is no guarantee it will land the right side up. Even if it does, there is no guarantee it won't flip back over again. Nothing is stable, everything in in flux.
The more we grasp at things, the more they elude us.
The trick is to not grasp for the coin—nay, there is no "trick"; there is simply watching the coin.