RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
February 17, 2017 at 8:49 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2017 at 8:49 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
When a bunch of healthy people are around we can't always decide who is the healtheist but when we can't prove objectively who is the healtheist out of a group of healthy people... we don't get people saying that therefore health is not objective and we need an exact definition that everyone agrees on and is completely non-arbitrary and foolproof otherwise it's not objective. No.
No part of science is completely non-arbitary and foolproof. Objective is not the same as universal or non-arbitrary. It's also not the same as finding answers in practice.
Something can be completely non-universal, non-arbitrary and even impossible to find answers in practice and there can STILL be objective answers in principle.
The fact that people don't agree on a definition of morality is completely irrelevant. Each definition has objective answers to it in principle.
No part of science is completely non-arbitary and foolproof. Objective is not the same as universal or non-arbitrary. It's also not the same as finding answers in practice.
Something can be completely non-universal, non-arbitrary and even impossible to find answers in practice and there can STILL be objective answers in principle.
The fact that people don't agree on a definition of morality is completely irrelevant. Each definition has objective answers to it in principle.
