Moral intuitionism

1 files changed, 7 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/microblog/index.html b/microblog/index.html
index 4f6d37f..dfce8e4 100644
--- a/microblog/index.html
+++ b/microblog/index.html
@@ -13,6 +13,13 @@
 		This is my <i>microblog</i>, a place for me to jot down random thoughts that I want to keep, but are too small enough to constitute a real article/post. Reverse chronological order.
 		</p>
 		<hr />
+		<p id="23">
+		I’m seriously considering the moral intuitionist argument of “if anything’s wrong, it’s wrong for someone to do something that they believe to be wrong”.
+		But this still leaves the questions around the legitimacy of the criminal justice system to punish acts that may be not “wrong” according to the previous statement but still harm society. Sure, the agency of the criminal justice system (or actually the legislature that creates it) may believe that deterring people from doing socially harmful acts, is moral, but the use of force here still bugs me. 
+		I like the argument that only one specific act performed by one abent under specific conditions has moral content. Moral descriptions of abstract classes of acts are systematically necessary, but they aren’t the same as moral content because there is no acting agent.
+		<a href="https://www.andrewyu.org/microblog/#23">&</a>
+		</p>
+		<hr />
 		<p id="22">
 		Random thought: Any historical analysis, and interpretations of evolution (in the biological sense, for why some organisms have their current traits), are not science because conclusions reached therein are not falsifiable
 		<a href="https://www.andrewyu.org/microblog/#22">&</a>