Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[genkaus]

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.

I think I have established that objective morality doesn't exist - atleast not completely. Some of the moral principles we currently accept do, in fact, have an objective basis. It is only to that extent that objective morality exists - or rather has been figured out. There is a lot of area where work is to be done.

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.

As long as we are referencing to facts regarding human beings, it'd be objective and not biased. It needs to be recognized that that morality would be applicable only to human beings. It can be accused of bias if it happens to be based on human facts and is applied to another category of beings.

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.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? Are you saying that one cannot be considered a moral agent unless they consider or reason the very process that gave rise to their morality? You are not being very clear here.

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

Because they demonstrate the relation between the fact in question and the concept referring to it.

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?

Your question makes no sense. The word "morality" is simply a tag given to the concept of "a guide on how one should act". As corollary, that concept is the definition of the word. That is a fact because we have made it a fact. In future, if the tag is changed to "ethica", it wouldn't change the concept behind it.

But their not violating the moral code isn't (simply because they can't, since they can't act).

Whether or not they violate the moral code is irrelevant since they are not moral agents to begin with.

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?

What do you mean by "engage in reasoned or considered process"? What process? Are you referring to "actions", as in those who cannot engage in "reasoned or considered actions"? If so, then yes, that would be contradictory too and those agents would not be moral agents.

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

Correct, I am not working backwards.