Moral Acts

[Neo-Scholastic]

wouldn't it just be is morality objective?

There are two main reasons why I would be reluctant to debate the question “Is Morality Objective?”
The first reason is that I’m not entirely convinced that morality IS objective. In this thread I find myself arguing against it. Many AF members are saying that following evolved instincts in light of rationally based universal principles produces moral knowledge. And one could argue that it could produce a kind of practical guide for behavior, but nothing anyone would recognize as moral and certainly not anything close to resembling the values of liberal Western societies.

So in a way, I haven’t been defending objective morality as such; but rather, questioning whether practical reason can produce specific universal values, like existential equality, that inform principles such as The Golden Rule. Lately, it seems to me that support for such values (liberal Western ones) ultimately comes from special revelation; or rather, special revelation supports the preference of transcendent values over expedient ones. So what I am saying is that formulating the right debate question is a bit tricky when both parties actually agree in kind but differ by degree.

Secondly, the quality of any debate depends on both parties accepting a reasonable amount of common ground. Bennyboy bends very strongly towards idealism. (Yes?) I could see us stuck debating the ontological status of reality itself rather than focusing on ethics. Both parties would need to acknowledge some degree of objectivity from the start.