• Subjectivism vs Objectivism vs Others
    • This is the basis of the conflict.
    • (By the way, there is no answer.)
  • As more specific points,
  • Q. Does morality exist?
    • The concept of “existence” itself is quite ambiguous, a question of ontology.
      • Based on my current phenomenology-based thinking, I thought that norms such as “do not kill people” also “exist” to the same extent as a recognized apple.
        • In the first place, both objects and norms are things that are recognized, and the only difference is the source (?) of recognition, whether it is mass or information.
          • If we define only things that are recognized as existing as “existing” based on mass as the source of recognition, norms will not “exist”, well, that depends on the definition.
    • Chapter 3 Non-realism
      • Assuming it doesn’t exist, what do we do? That’s the question.
  • Impression
    • As a difficulty in discussing meta-ethics, there seems to be a paradox that ethical judgment is necessary to consider what should be done ethically.
      • For example, there is a question of “how should we treat ethics assuming non-realism”, and it contradicts because there is some ethical basis for the answer.
      • I got the impression that the basis there is often written in ambiguous emotions.
        • Or rather, I feel like there is no other basis.
    • The distinction between “facts” and “norms” in ethics is interesting.
      • It’s like organizing what is considered “good” in society and thinking about the “true” good as it is in the current state.