Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I'm unclear as to which moral principles (that do currently exist) have an objective basis Genk.

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.

Sounds good to me, that would eliminate any rumblings about a universal morality that applied to all.

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.

You stated that a moral agent must be alive free to act in accordance to...(paraphrasing). It's fairly relevant if we are not, in fact, free to do this, isn't it?

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

What fact in question Genk...

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.

I don't disagree, it is just a tag given to a concept, but that doesn't mean that we don't have the entire issue confused does it? Our giving something a tag or a definition is no guarantee of accuracy with regards to that tag or definition once you invoke facts, reality, etc. You know, the world beyond the definitions or tags we give to things?

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

Because they are not -free to act- or -capable of acting in a manner in agreement with- or -alive-...but are we? Must all of these conditions be met, some of them, one of them?

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.

Then this would be one hell of a hurdle for you, since you'd have to establish that any of us are capable of this in reality (and not just by offering favorable definitions, axioms, or assertions). My point of contention here isn't so much as whether or not an objective morality exists (I did mention awhile back that I liked your "it may but we don't have it yet" argument). Its that even by this particular notion of morality that you are offering we have to just swallow quite a bit without much in the way of elaboration. If, for example, a moral agent must be free to act in accordance to this moral code, and this moral code must somehow be grounded in demonstrable facts about the nature of this moral agent (namely, in this conversation, ourselves) - if I am not, in actuality, free to act in accordance to this moral code...then this moral code is not grounded in my nature, in addition to my not being a moral agent in the first place.

---

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.

I'm unclear as to which moral principles (that do currently exist) have an objective basis Genk.

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.

Sounds good to me, that would eliminate any rumblings about a universal morality that applied to all.

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.

You stated that a moral agent must be alive and free to act in accordance to...(paraphrasing). It's fairly relevant if we are not, in fact, free to do this, isn't it?

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

What fact in question Genk...

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.

I don't disagree, it is just a tag given to a concept, but that doesn't mean that we don't have the entire issue confused does it? Our giving something a tag or a definition is no guarantee of accuracy with regards to that tag or definition once you invoke facts, reality, etc. You know, the world beyond the definitions or tags we give to things?

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

Because they are not "free to act" or "capable of acting in a manner in agreement with"...but are we?

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.

Then this would be one hell of a hurdle for you, since you'd have to establish that any of us are capable of this in reality (and not just by offering favorable definitions, axioms, or assertions). My point of contention here isn't so much as whether or not an objective morality exists (I did mention awhile back that I liked your "it may but we don't have it yet" argument). Its that even by this particular notion of morality that you are offering we have to just swallow quite a bit without much in the way of elaboration. If, for example, A moral agent must be free to act in accordance to this moral code, and this moral code must somehow be grounded in demonstrable facts about human nature and reality - then if I am not, in actuality, free to act in accordance to this moral code...then this moral code is not grounded in my nature, in addition to my not being a moral agent in the first place. It's only at this point that I would even rumble about this whole line of reasoning hinging on the -if- this morality is actually a guide to begin with, the likelihood of our making an error with regards to the definition, and all of this is assuming, of course, that something such as objective morality, whether we have properly defined it or not, exists as anything more than a thought exercise (the bit where we tie observations to the concept and bring it out of the closet, as it were, and remember that you are the one that insists upon this, not I, I'm actually okay with our spotty, oftentimes irrational and completely absurd morality, even if I don't always agree with any given part of it..lol)

When you say morality is a guide. Show that it is, or at least say "Morality -should be- a guide"
When you say that a moral agent must be alive and free to act in accordance...and if you'd like to claim that we are such agents, show that we meet those conditions (I'm giving you the "alive" bit..on general principle....lol.).