Message from @primarina
Discord ID: 633743867564523542
I accept your usage as a figure of speach
The state has no right to enforce a certain ideology or religion upon their citizens
cringe
The "literal" definition is based on it's common usage
But the common usage of the phrase is distinct from the common usage of the words
and the common process for combining words
I think there is serious hazard to rejecting that altertate literal interpretation / usage of the words
Intrinsic means in and of itself, aka objective, I don't see your problem here
There are multiple definitions of words you know?
But something can be intrinsic to the self
objective is no longer used as a synonym to intrinsic afaik
It *can* but that is a different definition hardly used ever if at all
So how is that less ambiguous
Um, the phrase is ambiguous
As to which interpretation to use
Literally I would be hard pressed to find that in any philosophical work or anything by laymen even
One may be more common, but it is also less accessible
Its actually more accessible
To philosophers who are used to using an abbreviation as a standin
Google "intrinsic morality"
How do I disable pings
Morality in and of itself...
Or natural morality
Essential morality
These are all words also used to refer to an objective morality
Dude, intrinsic morality is clearly a shorthand, with a meaning that isn't a literal combination of those two words
Yes it is a literal combination
That morals are intrinsic to reality rather than not being so
Yeah, intrinsic to reality, not merely intrinsic to 'unspecified'
There's a **big** difference
I choose to read that phrase as involving an omission
So that I can use the familiar meanings of the words involved.
The definition is "naturally" that implies it's reality
Um, what
"Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent."
```belonging naturally; essential```
And...?
Natural implies nature, as in natural law and such
Why do you need this phrase to be a literal combination of the two words?