Perhaps we are no longer meaning to use the word "egocentric" for it's definition any longer, but more as a generalized disapprobation. such as "Look at that egocentric sonuvabitch over there"
That connotation did seem to be implied by your usage. Otherwise why point its supposed presence out as a negative thing?
I actually didn't. I was accused of it and said I had no way to defend myself of that claim, but expressed I was open to a less egocentric option if one was presented.
It does seem clear now that we have been working with different definitions of "egocentric". I had been using it, more or less as a synonym for "self important" or "self centered" going along with the first dictionary definition "having regard for the self or the individual as the center of all things"
There is a more precise definition is psychology that (among other things) is characterized by "a incomplete differentiation of the self from the world" and so I can see, how perhaps this argument has formed after many encounters with Christians who are guilty of "SPAG" to say "Hey now, what you've done is you've taken yourself, and you've projected it out into the universe. That's a psychological disorder called egocentrism"
It seems like I walked in late to the party and received the accusation without the linking argument.
Far more arrogant maybe. Significantly less egocentric than assuming the source fo those values is actually found within yourself.
Subjective values would be held by all individuals. There is no room to view one's own as special, except relative to one's self. And we're all small. So no, not egocentric. The view that one has access to the One True set of values, and that others do not - that is egocentric. It holds that the one is special, and better than those who disagree.
No you're right. Nobody is thinking of themselves as special or magical under subjectivism. and additionally, If i professed to you that I alone (or My compatriots and I) was the source of true morality. that would be of a higher order of egocentricity entirely.
However that is not my view. I reject subjectivism outright, and thus hold to the presence of some objective value out there. but it is not my own self projected God that is the source of those values. Instead conceptions of the divine are just one more tool we all use to take stabs at this central truth. they are hypothesis, guesses
And mine is not the one final true and authoritative guess. It's just mine. The one I think
is closest to the truth. But my own inability to know with surety does not mean that no final truth exists.
Contrary to that, If I insisted that my own ignorance was proof that reality itself was equally ignorant, or empty it would be very self important indeed. and if i proceeded to declare myself on those grounds to be my own highest moral authority I might even call it egocentric (but in a general sense not the sense you used)
Regardless That is not what I believe. I believe objective moral truths exist, and it is my job as an individual to attempt to learn them as best as I can and conform my understanding or morality to those truths.
I do not have objective knowledge of objective moral truths
Apparently you have objective knowledge of the moral truth that you're supposed to appeal to this supposed source of objective moral truth. Where did you learn that you needed to do this? Who or what was it that had the authority to point you toward a particular source of morality?
When I get into discussions like the one that began on this board about things like raping women for money, I see that the possibility is immediately rejected that that might ever be morally right.
We can conceive of it being thought of as morally right, but not of it actually being virtuous.
For me, the best way i can describe what's going on there is my own internal bullshit detector is going off, and it will not allow me to shoehorn into my brain that that action might be "true for you but not for me" or "right for you but wrong for me"
No no, that action is wrong for everyone. You think it's right, and your thought that it is right is false, because in actual point of fact it is wrong
(Understand here that Im using "you" hypothetical, not accusing you, Azgardi of this)
As such then I am left believing in objective morals somewhere. But that alone doesn't tell me where, so i have to keep looking.
No again, I said I have two ways. Coherence, and the sniff test.
Those are ways to determine whether the morals appeal to and are useful to us. They don't do the task I outlined.
perhaps i misunderstood you
What ways do you have?
The same as yours. I just take more responsibility for my role in using them.
How is that?