I think people equate universal with objective. I have to disagree on that. Some people can have a wrong moral view while others can be right about their moral view. The fact that not everyone agrees on an issue, doesn't mean there is no right or wrong answer.
It also doesn't mean, that one cannot know he has a right answer.
It just seems to be the case, that right or wrong is not dependant on our judgement.
Some people believe evolution created objective morality.
You can ask:
"Did evolution produce what is moral because it is moral or did is it moral because evolution declare it so/produced it".
Don't get caught up "declare" and words, just try to get what I mean. In the former view, it shows morality is INDEPENDENT of evolution. In the latter view, it would be arbitrary, because a different course of evolution, we could've had different morals. Different species do different things.
In the same way we can ask
Is it that we judge something is moral because it's moral or is it moral because we judged it to be so.
These show that either morality is independent of our judgement or is arbitrary.
Since it's independent of evolution, independent of our judgement, then exactly what is it?
More over is the question of why anyone should obey the "commanding" "SHOULD" in some moral issues, like "We should not kill people for fun", seems like it cannot be answered by consequence "Well we wouldn't survive if we do this". Why should an individual care if society would survive. If it all comes down to self interest, then what is the difference in intention of a Tyrant whom acts according to self interest?
The commanding should, doesn't seem like it can be authority of evolution.
Also, combination of chemicals being the commanding force to all this, just seems to be unauthorative.
Yet morality as we all perceive it as authority to the highest degree, there is no limit to the the authority it has.
So along with being independent of our judgements, independent of evolution, it seems to be metaphysical.
The Euthyphro dilemma when asked to God shows that not even God can decide morality, because it would be arbitrary. Nothing can decide morality, no process can produce without it existing independently from it, then what is it exactly?
You see, God can't decide what morality is either, it's rather has to be either whom he is, or part of whom he is.
When we see society, we tend also see that it grows in moral views, it advances. We also see this about greatness.
But with our knowledge of morality, is there any limit to the goodness and greatness that is possible for a possible being to reach.
Logically, there is infinite potential. But all this potential must have had eternal basis, as we have shown, it cannot be produced by a process (evolution for example)..so it is shown all these infinite levels of goodness and moral highness, if objective morality exists, is independant of our judgment.
It seems rather something must be the basis to all potential levels.
Now aside from this, it seems that we have to have some sort of link to this basis, and when we are correct, it's due to our link to this basis.
A person may deny then morality is real. It's rather but a delusion.
But what it seems to me, is that it's obvious by this knowledge of morality, that we know it's real, because if it was not real, we would not have this knowledge of it.
It also doesn't mean, that one cannot know he has a right answer.
It just seems to be the case, that right or wrong is not dependant on our judgement.
Some people believe evolution created objective morality.
You can ask:
"Did evolution produce what is moral because it is moral or did is it moral because evolution declare it so/produced it".
Don't get caught up "declare" and words, just try to get what I mean. In the former view, it shows morality is INDEPENDENT of evolution. In the latter view, it would be arbitrary, because a different course of evolution, we could've had different morals. Different species do different things.
In the same way we can ask
Is it that we judge something is moral because it's moral or is it moral because we judged it to be so.
These show that either morality is independent of our judgement or is arbitrary.
Since it's independent of evolution, independent of our judgement, then exactly what is it?
More over is the question of why anyone should obey the "commanding" "SHOULD" in some moral issues, like "We should not kill people for fun", seems like it cannot be answered by consequence "Well we wouldn't survive if we do this". Why should an individual care if society would survive. If it all comes down to self interest, then what is the difference in intention of a Tyrant whom acts according to self interest?
The commanding should, doesn't seem like it can be authority of evolution.
Also, combination of chemicals being the commanding force to all this, just seems to be unauthorative.
Yet morality as we all perceive it as authority to the highest degree, there is no limit to the the authority it has.
So along with being independent of our judgements, independent of evolution, it seems to be metaphysical.
The Euthyphro dilemma when asked to God shows that not even God can decide morality, because it would be arbitrary. Nothing can decide morality, no process can produce without it existing independently from it, then what is it exactly?
You see, God can't decide what morality is either, it's rather has to be either whom he is, or part of whom he is.
When we see society, we tend also see that it grows in moral views, it advances. We also see this about greatness.
But with our knowledge of morality, is there any limit to the goodness and greatness that is possible for a possible being to reach.
Logically, there is infinite potential. But all this potential must have had eternal basis, as we have shown, it cannot be produced by a process (evolution for example)..so it is shown all these infinite levels of goodness and moral highness, if objective morality exists, is independant of our judgment.
It seems rather something must be the basis to all potential levels.
Now aside from this, it seems that we have to have some sort of link to this basis, and when we are correct, it's due to our link to this basis.
A person may deny then morality is real. It's rather but a delusion.
But what it seems to me, is that it's obvious by this knowledge of morality, that we know it's real, because if it was not real, we would not have this knowledge of it.
