The world is ostensibly consequentialistic and moral concern ostensibly sentiocentric.
However, I stuggle to justify even *consequentialism* and *sentiocentrism* as the obvious properties of any proposed moral system - they both just seem so obvious that it could not be any other way, tho Im not sure that is an argument?!
(if you include very long posts, please give a tldr sketch of your thesis just to give a taste)
Whether it's pushpin, poetry or neither, you can discuss it here.
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
tl,dr: moral realism is false and all morality is arbitrary at some point, so stop worrying.