Reading this article has reminded me of a problem that I’ve been grappling with ever since I was old enough to think: what is the justification for moral values?
My problem is that I’ve been trained to think from all sides from school. This is all they tell you in theory courses: consider the problem from all perspectives. And you know what the problem is? You eventually realize that no one has a fool-proof argument, that if you TRULY considered the problem from ALL possible perspective, you realize that each possible perspective has at least a reasonable argument. Then what’s left? Your preference. It can’t even be called reason, in the big capital letter sense of the word, because no one can take a view from nowhere.
And then you start to ask: well why do I believe this? Is it because somehow my premises and assumptions are more sound? But yet whatever I happen to believe in, someone else has a reasonable argument that goes against mine. Who is to be the arbitrator? No one.
But yet everyone needs to have positive values of some kind, so this problem of justification continually makes itself felt.