(March 19, 2017 at 1:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote: . . .the question remains...do any of our subjective moral opinions correlate to moral facts?Under at least one definition, definitely-- they are a legacy of mechanisms in place before any individual subjective agent came into existence, and in a determinism, that agency can be disregarded (as has often been in our discussions of mind/matter). Under the definition "best action at a given moment," it depends what resolution of detail you're talking about. There might be some god-level action where literally every molecule in the body would be ideally placed, and that would be impossible to achieve. In other cases, you have a binary decision-- kill the baby / don't kill the baby, in which case you'd have a 50% chance of your action exactly conforming to the moral fact-- given a moral goal.
Quote: Answering this question in the affirmative is a statement of objective morality..and you've answered that -all- of them are moral facts (which certainly couldn't be true, as that would entail that -all- contradictory moral opinions and facts were simultaneously true, but hey....it's your description of morality so knock yourself out)...so I don;t understand any reservations, from these stated descriptions and positions, on objective morality.I don't have reservations, so long as things are defined as I define them.
