(May 24, 2018 at 6:30 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:(May 24, 2018 at 4:22 pm)SteveII Wrote: Divine Command Theory is not subjective. God's commands are a result of his perfectly good nature--of which he is bound by--which provides an objective foundation for all moral commands.
There is no objective morality without an unchanging standard. The very definition of evolution ensures there is not such thing. You can have principles on which to base morality, but those principles are themselves not objective. You will always have an infinite regression of "why is it good...why...why" with nothing to stop it. Go ahead, try it.
Why is murder morally wrong?
-It violates the rights of another
--Why is that wrong?
---
If you think I haven't stretched myself on that rack, you are sorely mistaken. Since you mentioned moral Platonism, I will say that Plato has been a huge influence upon my ethics, second only perhaps to Spinoza.
Your "infinite regression" is nothing new. Plato covers it in Book II of the Republic. A well-ordered soul demands cohesion with the truth. The truth is that there is an objectively discernible good.
The issue with your moral quandary is that you assume there is no underlying truth... that there is no answer to the question "Why is that wrong?"--there is an answer.
My last sentence was a bit inaccurate. You think there IS an answer.
Why is that wrong?
-because God.
To me, that answer is incoherent. It dodges the question and confuses the issue and in no way represents moral objectivity.
I'd be curious to hear about this, if you dont mind me asking.
Playing devil's advocate here, why is murder objectively wrong?
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
