(June 11, 2012 at 10:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: The trouble I think, is when you argue that "if" this objective morality can be shown to be based on facts- etc etc. Are we entirely certain that morality hinges on facts?
That statement is tautologically true. If that morality is not based on facts, then it cannot be called objective morality.
(June 11, 2012 at 10:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: What might qualify as a "moral fact"?
Since morality is a guide on how to act, the facts regarding human actions - such as our biological and rational capacities - would come under moral facts.
(June 11, 2012 at 10:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: Also, when you say that this objective morality would not be based on anyone's opinions, that isn't the only way that such a morality might be subjective.
No, it may also be based on the subject's emotions or desires. Basically, if it derives from the subject's mind and/or thoughts about it, it is subjective.
(June 11, 2012 at 10:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: Is being based on logic an absolute requirement for objectivity in the case of morality in the first place?
No, being based on reality is the requirement. Since reality cannot be but logical, being so is a reliable test for morality's objectivity.
(June 11, 2012 at 10:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: Lets suppose we all shared the same moral constructs, but no thought had ever been given to them, no opinions had ever been offered in support or criticism of them. I know, not likely, but this is a "what if" game, right? Would this morality not qualify as objective by the metrics you've offered -being that they are subject to no one's opinion-?
The premise of your question is wrong. In the situation you outlined, the question of objective or subjective becomes moot, since it cannot be considered morality in the first place. The key difference between human and animal morality is that animals simply act according to instinct or conditioning. Human actions, on the other hand, have to be considered before they come under the purview of morality. Consider that we do not judge the parasites in our body according to human standards of good and evil. Further, when someone is shown to be incapable of understanding his actions - such as an infant or the mentally-challenged - we do not hold them responsible for their actions either.
(June 11, 2012 at 10:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: In the case of the two hypothetically coexisting moralities of slitznarpians and humans each morality is subjective with regards to the species which it applies to, isn't it?
No, it would still be objective with regards to them since it would be wholly based on facts regarding those species and not anyone's thoughts about them. Things do not become objective to subjective even if they change from person to person. The pattern of your finger-prints, for example, is objective, even though it is unique to you.
(June 11, 2012 at 10:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: Again, you've defined a set and then declared the morality in question to be objective, relative to the set.
Relative is not the same as subjective. Things can be relative and objective at the same time.
(June 11, 2012 at 10:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: I really don't have any problem with searching for this kind of morality btw, it's not something I'd argue against. But the terms used do seem to be influenced by the context of the argument. You seem to be defining objective to fit the morality you're proposing, rather than demonstrating that this hypothetical objective morality is, in fact, objective.
On the contrary, I consistently use the same definition for objective, albeit with minor variations in expression:
Something is objective if it:
1. Depends on the object of inquiry rather than the subject.
or 2. Is independent of anyone's thoughts, opinions or desires regarding it.
or 3. Depends on facts of reality.
(June 11, 2012 at 10:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: In a nutshell, I think my problem with this is that in the act of defining some objective morality the axioms at the base of the moral pyramid would seem to my mind to be entirely too easy to characterize as opinions of some sort.
We could try it out, propose some hypothetical axioms that would form the basis of this objective morality and run them through a meat grinder?
I've already proposed two of them, I'll now give all three.
1. Morality is a guide for a moral agent regarding how to act.
2. A moral agent needs to be both alive and free to be able to act according to the code.
3. Every action has a goal.
