(June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm unclear as to which moral principles (that do currently exist) have an objective basis Genk.
The principles that every person has the right to his life and freedom.
(June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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?
It is very much relevant. So which do you require proof for - that we are alive or that we are free to act?
(June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What fact in question Genk...
You tell me. You are the one doing the questioning.
(June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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?
Actually, it is. We can be sure that the tag does, in fact, refer to the concept because we have made it so.
(June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Because they are not "free to act" or "capable of acting in a manner in agreement with"...but are we?
Aren't we? I think the fact that we do, shows that we are.
(June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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).
Are you doubting the human capacity to act according to reason and to consider our actions? Something that we do and continue doing even through this discussion?
(June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.
Consider the last two sentences. There are two distinct and unrelated statements there.
1. A moral agent must be free to act according to a moral code. It does not specify which moral code. It also has nothing to do with whether a particular moral code is based on facts or not.
2. If a moral code is to be objective, then it must be grounded in facts about human nature and reality.
There are multiple combinations of the two:
a) I'm free to act according to this moral code, but it is not based on facts. Thus, I am a moral agent and the code is not objective.
b) I'm free to act and it is based on facts. Both agency and objectivity satisfied.
c) I'm not free to act, but it is based on facts. Objectivity satisfied, but agency is not. For example, some other party which is not acting on the said moral code it constraining your actions.
d) I'm not free to act and it is not based on facts. Neither condition satisfied.
(June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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"
Now those bits are completely senseless. What you are saying basically amounts to "Prove to me that all bachelors are actually unmarried".
(June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.).
The "free" part is a general principle as well - unless you happen to be a slave. This point is simply ridiculous. Acting in accordance to our thoughts, reasons or considerations is common enough to be taken for granted and it is usually the absence of such a capacity that needs to be proven. The fact that we do it every day should be proof enough that we are free to do it.
