(March 10, 2011 at 6:04 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Don't agree corndog. You are suggesting that there are indeed objective moral values (even though they do not bootstrap from a diety). We can agree that human understanding of accpetable behavious changes through time and space. You could account for this:
-there is objective morality which we can uncover (through adaptation and shared understanding), or
-that no such objective moral values exist and it is an illusion to say that they exist at all.
The latter seems to me to be a more parsimonious as I would not have to explain the wellspring from which objective morality emerges. What is the evidence/reasoning for objective morality?
I'm leaning toward the former, but the use of the word 'objective' is problematic. Since morality only exists in the mind, in that sense it is subjective. But I don't think that precludes the possibility of Identifying absolute right and wrong. I was asked in another thread to describe a 'flawless concept of morality.' I answered:
A flawless concept of morality would be based on fundamental principles of right and wrong. It could be applied to any set of circumstance and would yield the morally correct answer in all cases.
Is that subjective or objective?
