(April 13, 2012 at 9:52 am)mediamogul Wrote: FTR this is where a philosophy class would help. You need some foundational concepts before it makes sense to talk about "objective" morality.
Plato believed that things existed as they "actually are" in a perfect realm beyond this one. He called them "Forms". For instance we have many "chairs" that we can interact with in our normal world of sense perception. Plato believed that somewhere existed essence of "chairness" in the realm of forms which can be accessed by use of our reason. This is called Metaphysics (study of the nature of Being) and Epistemology (study of Knowledge or our ability to know). These are the two foundational principles needed prior to asking about "objective" morality. Is there an essence of "Humaness" that predefines, before a human exists, what a "perfect" human would do? Generally this concept requires a being to have pre-concieved humans before creating them. The famous saying is that "essence precedes existence". Sartre turned this on it's head and said that humans define "Humaness" by existing, "existence precedes essence" which is where the term "existentialism" came from.
This is a basic starting point. I have found it very difficulty to generate a working system of ethics that wasn't based more on rights than actual normative ethics. It's hard to command others to act in a certain way when you believe that ethics are not absolute so it is more about rights to behave in certain ways provided they don't impede others rights and don't cause unnecessary suffering.
Every philosophy consists of metaphysics and epistemology. Plato's particular approach was called idealism. Its opposite came much before Sartre - from Aristotle.
Ethics most certainly depends upon the metaphysics and epistemology you choose to accept. Most often, I find that the "revealed" ethical doctrines - such as those of Christianity - accept Plato's Idealism as their basis.
