RE: Good vs Evil
May 8, 2019 at 8:31 pm
(This post was last modified: May 8, 2019 at 8:32 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(May 7, 2019 at 1:37 pm)Smaug Wrote: Strictly speaking, by considering this statement you cannot derive that there is any objective truth about moral absolutes either.
True. The essayist's goal was was to debunk cultural relativism, and he did a damn fine job. But giving a foundation for moral objectivism was beyond the scope of his paper. I can provide a rational basis for moral objectivity. Just ask.
Quote:The only thing you can firmly say is that there are conflicting moral codes. On the other hand, relativistic hypothesis works well enaugh in explaining moral behaviour without invoking moral absolutes at all. Rejecting moral relativism on the grounds of the aforementioned arguement is like rejecting Einstein's Relativity on the grounds that he did not strictly disprove the existence of an absolute reference frame.
If you feel like having a 'moral constant' then you can reason along this line: certain set of rules of social interaction allow societies _and_ most of their members to thrive (or at least live a bearable life). Such a set of rules may be considered 'optimal' at least for a very generalized case.
I'm not a moral absolutist. To me, conditions apply to moral action. Killing or theft might be justified. Selfishness can be good. What makes a morality objective is that there are underlying principles at work in the moral theory which allow one to determine (beforehand) whether theft or some other act is morally permissible. An objective morality refers to these principles as its absolute reference frame, and determines the locality of a given deed on the moral spectrum accordingly.
Is there debate about which principles are to be used as the absolute reference frame? Yes. Just like there is debate about phenomena in biology and quantum physics. Just because there is disagreement, doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth to discover.
Moral realism is the belief that certain moral propositions can be true (nothing more, nothing less). These propositions need not be absolutitist. Conditions may apply.