21 Aug '08 11:43>
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou use 'moral' in an idiosyncratic sense, but that is of no matter. If you prefer, the question could be rephrased in term of 'ethical value', or merely in terms of 'reason-giving force'. If you claim that something X has more value to you than something Y, then, ceteris paribus, you are claiming that there are stronger reasons in favor of pursuing, endorsing, supporting, etc. X than there are for Y. It does not matter for my purposes here whether you think there is no referent for the term 'moral'.
[b]…Fine. But there is quite a profound difference between the general level of intellect possessed by one with Down's Syndrome and that possessed by your average Nobel Laureate. …
true
…Do you think that this difference is MORALLY important in assessing the respective value of their lives?...… (my emphasis)
When I was referring ...[text shortened]... ive judgement for I don’t think one person is “WORTH” more than another in the objective sense.[/b]
I think you are confused regarding the objective/subjective distinction. You have been asked to explain your views. Your views are beliefs of yours, and as such admit of questions of justification. That is, your beliefs are either justified or unjustified. Calling a belief subjective does nothing to answer questions concerning the justification of that belief. If you mean by 'subjective' that your subjective beliefs have no reasons that justify them, then your subjective beliefs are unjustified and need not be taken seriously. But of course that is not correct. You think you do have reasons for your beliefs, and that your reasons justify your beliefs. So why not simply say that although your beliefs may be incorrect, you think they are supported by good reasons?
If you think that the notion of worth is purely subjective, in that no claims about worth can be assessed, then why did you attempt to answer the original question at all? But you did attempt to answer that question; you claimed that considerations of general intelligence weighed in favor of ascribing differential worth to humans. So, you do not think that worth is purely subjective. Rather, you think that considerations of general intelligence (or those other qualities for which this is a shorthand) can justify claims about worth. Since considerations of general intelligence are not purely subjective, it follows that objective considerations can justify claims about worth. So, by your own lights, you are now contradicting yourself by claiming that 'worth' is purely subjective.