(May 8, 2016 at 9:25 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:(May 8, 2016 at 9:02 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: But, if we are "humans" conducting a test for an objective morality, by measuring what is best for "humans", don't we start with a bias?
Doesn't the same apply to health? And can't we care for the health of animals and if so what about the same for morality?
-Hammy
Even if you where able to look at each moral dilemma objectively, testing the amount of harm each decision causes doesn't tell the whole story. Also, Even if you came to the conclusion that one thing causes more harm, how does that change anyone else's morality?
I think of the old hypothetical, would you kill one child to save a million people? This is very easy to test for objectively, obviously killing the child is less harm so we could easily deem that the moral choice. The problem is, it doesn't make it so, the people who believe it is immoral to kill that child are still going to believe that it is immoral.
