(August 31, 2012 at 11:02 am)genkaus Wrote: Allow me to demonstrate by example. The purpose of a knife is to cut. A prescriber is not required if the objective is inherent to the object itself. Another example would be - one of the purposes of science is to discover and explain truths about nature. While there may have been a prescriber originally who developed the philosophical basis for this very purpose, he is no longer required and the purpose has become inherent to the object itself.
(August 31, 2012 at 10:40 am)stephenmills1000 Wrote: Correct, as it does apply to God, for he is in fact independent of all entities, thus would be objective as you define.
Your hypothetical god may exist independently from all entities, but his morality is still dependent on him and is therefore subjective. We are not talking about the objectivity of god but that of his morality.
I have used many a knife as an impromptu screwdriver or pry bar before! Assigning this sort of purpose, this intrinsic value, makes it some sort of agent. What are the consequences to the object when it violates its purpose? Further, what is the purpose of water? I think you will find that one cannot escape that prescription of value to objects are repsective to the purpose of the agent utilizing the object.
The second point is incorrect, for this discussion is about moral ontology, not moral epistemology, specifically that which is God's. Do you not agree, that it is better to base values on an authority (maybe it doesn't have to be God, for argument's sake) that is independent of those which are agents responsible for carrying out the values themselves?
