(April 19, 2017 at 5:13 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:No, are you?(April 19, 2017 at 1:38 pm)Crunchy Wrote: Ok, here are the definitions you linked to:
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior: a moral poem
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior: took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
Right or wrong in relation to what? Right behavior about what? Well, that would be in relation to what is "good" for people, and how people should behave in that dynamic. (i.e. morality only applies to moral agents and not to falling rocks)
So now we have to figure out what it means to be "good" to people. Enter our basic needs as presented in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Our basic needs are not a theory and there is no disagreement about them. The need for food, clean water and air etc... are objectively good for us. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality. You cannot morally deny a child food and clean water without some other mitigating circumstance that you would have to have a convincing argument for, otherwise you are in contradiction of the definitions of morality that you yourself linked to.
I do not deny that progressing from this moral bedrock is easy but we can build upon this objective core to yield something more comprehensive. You will find the same basic position in Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" where he argues that moral questions will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.
(I have only heard Harris talk about the book, I have not yet read it myself)
Right or wrong in relation to a human thought or action. Are you being purposefully obtuse?
Thought or action concerning what? Are we talking about your thoughts on Geography? The action of swimming? No, when discussing morality, we are talking about what is good for people. If you can understand that, then you may understand the rest of the post.
If god was real he wouldn't need middle men to explain his wants or do his bidding.