(June 10, 2012 at 11:35 am)Rhythm Wrote: If we are creating it then we'd have to add provisions to the whole "objective" bit wouldn't we? Not that I would mind that, or disagree with it, just as an exercise in intellectual rigor. It would be pleasant if we could all find a useful and well reasoned set of moral concepts to agree on, hell, even just a few. But they would never be universal or objective in the way that Mystic is using the term. I personally use the term "discovery" as a concilliatory gesture to those who believe that such a thing as eternal morality floats around making things right or wrong and has it's own existence without reference to human beings might possibly exist....but I'd like to see them demonstrate that..lol.
Firstly, it would not be universal at all. The application of its concepts would change according to the time and place it is being applied. Secondly, the objective part would remain, i.e. it would not change according to a person's opinions or wishes.
Let's ask ourselves what morality is at its most basic - it is a code of conduct. It is a guide as to how a person should act, what he should do and what he should not do. Actions which are in accordance with that code are "good" and those against are "bad".
Now, an objective and well-reasoned morality would also need to be logical and rational, i.e. it cannot have some parts of it contradicting others. Based on these facts, we can figure out some parts of that objective moral code.
First of all, a person cannot act unless he is alive and free to act. These are the preconditions for morality and since it would not be logically consistent unless it complemented its own preconditions, objective morality must support both life and liberty. Every morality in existence requires these two preconditions, but if its tenets are contradictory to it, then it is illogical. Which is why I consider these two concepts of morality (and their corollaries: murder is wrong and slavery is wrong) to be objectively established.
One thing to be noted is that these are still not universal. They are applicable only as long as the moral agent acts consistently with the premises. Once he forgoes the premises (such as in case of a murderer or a slaver), these conditions no longer apply and therefore that person can be executed or imprisoned. I think we have more or less figured out these parts but have never applied them fully or consistently - given the prominence of death-penalty in some countries even in non-murder cases or the legality of slavery until the 19th century or imprisonment for crimes without any victims.
