Posts
Comments
If you really wanted to get ontological you could potentially expand those "Not Possible" blank spots. For example temporality (living/dead state for beings), NPCs, P-Zombies, etc.
Not to mention all the a priori ontological presuppositions that are not universally justified: all humans have souls/minds, these souls/minds operate similarly/rationally, innate self-awareness, inner-voice, etc.
These universally egalitarian assumptions about humanity's qualities on which to measure other beings against may be what is leading to such confusion over our own human condition. We end up speaking past each other to preserve a relatively modern arbitrary value, Human Egalitarianism, at the expense of the Natural unequal truth. Perhaps when Materialist says he doesn't have a soul and is just chemical reactions, the Theist should honor his words; inversely, the Materialist should respect that he probably can't ever epistemically comprehend metaphysical things which it has no innate capacity for (like an ant trying to understand the mechanics and meaning of prayer or painting).
In the past, Ontological Morality was more apparent in society when we acknowledged the existence of Saints and Sinners. But we stopped do that because it was too offensive to say someone was good or evil, or had a soul or was soulless. It was considered offensive and old-fashioned to illiberally judge. In that secularization, we lost a lot of the distinctions in being human and being in general.