(June 11, 2012 at 8:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: Why couldn't an objective morality be both irrational or illogical as well as objective?
I think that's pretty obvious. If morality is objective, then it is not based on anyone's opinions or desires, it is based on facts. Being derived from facts, it would be rational (since its derivation would have to be reasoned) and logical (since logic pertains to how one truth follows from another).
(June 11, 2012 at 8:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: Wouldn't any currently existing morality be objective so long as we limited what group of individuals we are considering.
Not if it is dependent upon the opinions or desires of members of that group. Objective doesn't mean independent of our opinions, it means independent of anyone's opinions.
(June 11, 2012 at 8:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: Would beings from the planet Slitznarp also have to follow this morality, and in standing next to a being from the planet Slitnarp who does not follow this morality could it still then be called objective?
Not necessarily and not if facts which apply to us do not apply to them. For e.g. assume that beings from planet Slitnarp have a hive mind where no single being can act (and by that, I'm implying a physiological constraint), without the collective will sanctioning that action. In that case, their objective morality would take that into consideration and the concept of freedom would simply not apply to them. It would continue to apply to us even if we are standing beside them. And even in this case, both moralities would be objective.
(June 11, 2012 at 8:05 am)Rhythm Wrote: It's not that I can't see where you're coming from, but that the terms used to describe this morality do have a bit of jargon going for them in that their meanings are perhaps slightly altered by the concept which you wish to propose (not an issue so long as we're on-board with the idea that objective; as it pertains to morality and within the confines of this discussion merely means that all human beings agree. I only offer the hypothetical Slitznarpian above to show that there would be similarities with this agreed upon or objective morality with all moralities currently in existence in that they can very much appear to be objective 9so long as you define the set) until confronted with a dissenter.)
I most definitely do not agree with the bolded part. Objective simply does not mean "based on agreement of all humans" - unless it can be shown that that agreement itself is based on facts. Any otherwise agreed upon morality would still be subjective. And even in case of a dissenter, if he can show that his argument is based on facts while the masses rely on their desires, then the masses are wrong and the dissenter is right.
