Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, our current morality is not based on facts, but still hits some of the same points as objective morality.

So you say, but what would those points be, and how would you know that there is convergence until you have established that objective morality exists? I'm not asking you whether or not objective morality -as you have defined it- hits on similar points, because that can be accomplished by anyone willing to define anything.

A stickler might answer that some of the thoughts may be borrowed form other minds. But that is irrelevant.

So long as we can rule out that these concepts were "tainted" by the minds of those individuals, that they were truly objective, agreed. "Objective" so long as we are referencing human beings and some part of their nature or universal experience will always leave the door open to the possibility of anthropic reasoning, and ergo bias.

Ofcourse it'd be contingent upon "as far as we know". Do you know of any knowledge that is not?

No, of course not, but there are others in the thread that insist upon something that goes a great deal farther than "as far as we know". Me and provisional certitude are right as rain.

No, its not so because I say so, it is so because that is how we define a moral agent. A being which cannot consider its actions cannot be a moral agent. Whether or not "moral considerations" are a product of reasoned or considered process or not is irrelevant, since it is not the process that requires consideration but the actions of the agent.

I'm going to have to disagree, it's pretty damned relevant if the process itself is not reasoned or considered Genk. We would then not be moral agents, would we? You have defined us as such, and defined morality as such, but you are insisting upon reality and logic and facts, so definitions are insufficient. You need substance to pull this rabbit out of this hat. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to see you show that we actually are such agents. If we are not, then even if an objective morality existed, we would be incapable of utilizing it, even as you have defined it.

Notice that I talked about the pattern of fingerprints, not the fingerprints themselves. Any pattern is a mental construct, albeit one based on objective and demonstrable facts.

Right, demonstrable facts...so why do i keep getting definitions and tautologies when I ask questions about this?

According to the current definition of morality, it is a guide.

Your current definition or someone else's current definition and how have we determined that any current definition is factually accurate with regards to this morality in the first place?

Amusing - but incorrect. A dead moral agent is a contradiction.

But their not violating the moral code isn't (simply because they can't, since they can't act), speaking of contradictions, a moral agent that could not engage in a reasoned or considered process with regards to morality would also be contradictory, by your definition, wouldn't it?

Given that I started with the definitions - of morality and moral agents - I can say pretty confidently that is not the case.

That what is not the case, I'm assuming that you mean that you aren't working backwards? Correct?