RE: One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.
November 7, 2017 at 2:52 pm
(November 7, 2017 at 2:43 pm)Khemikal Wrote: @Whatevs
IMO, at least some of the times a person tells you about their subjective position of some moral issue, when you ask why they hold it you get an objective description of just what it is that makes that thing x immoral. Perhaps people don't realize that they're describing an objective morality because they have misapprehensions and expectations of an objective morality that are well beyond the realm of reality?
That, for example, if there were an objective morality there would be a "correct" answer to every moral question, or no room for disagreement between two people on the status of x as a moral issue, or that the moral answer to a moral question would be absolute and without any possible mitigation. That all foggy moral issues would be resolved in some simple moral arithmetic.
An objective morality doesn;t do -any- of that...it;s utility mostly comes down to having a means to seperate, in our own moral frameworks..what is somehow objectively immoral from what is subjectively immoral. By and large, we've begun to think that punishing people for the subjectively immoral is not as well grounded as punishing them for the objectively immoral. Miscegeny was subjectively immoral, we no longer consider it a crime because we no longer feel that it is objectively immoral. I say we, but that "we" obviously excludes Yahweh and other assorted racists.
As a practical endeavor, morality can be argued objectively based on shared valuations. And I agree both that not every minor moral decision would be decided the same way even amongst those capable of agreeing on the big things. At some point, you move down the scale from arguing morality to arguing over manners.
