(June 17, 2011 at 7:28 am)Anymouse Wrote:
My So. Baptist neigbour goes in for this question. (She doesn't go in for such deep thought as "objective good" versus "subjective good." To her, good is a function of God, not a function of good.)
This is very good (relatively speaking ...) and essentially my interpretation of the comment during the debate; if we don't argue anything other than subjective ethics, we risk having all other points discounted ... because our opponents can see ethics as a race to objective claims of right, which they will invariably win. Their rules, their definition. Even if we can demonstrate a consistent subjective moral code, it risks being ignored.
While I don't have any easy answer to how to go to something else, I can come to grip with the problem ... through epistemology. While consistency is the only benchmark I can recommend in analyzing moral bodies, the question of how you know somersetting to be correct always seems paramount.
