(September 4, 2012 at 9:30 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Somethings to consider:
1) Moral improvement/evolution in society doesn't disprove objective morality, but shows it exists, if you truly believe we are improving/evolving with respect to some issues.
2) Differences in morals doesn't disprove morals that differ, it rather can be that both views have their relationship to objective morality but fall short of it or one is more nearer to it then the other.
This can be for example on the issue of whether we should want everlasting revenge on tyrants like Saddam Hussain. It can be that anger and wrath towards such people is good, as well, as mercy and compassion is good. Which one is higher depends on which one is in tune with God (objective morals). But they both can have their origin from God, just one is more in tune.
3) Non-universal morals doesn't disprove anything for same reason as above.
4) Universal morals also would not prove objective morals.
5) At the end, the only thing that can prove objective morality is properly basic knowledge of it.
6) Most of humanity believes in objective morality without knowing why and how.
7) You can prove scientifically doing certain actions make us happier, make us feel good, helps our survival as a species, is shared by other animals etc, but you cannot prove objective morals/ethics from science.
So close. Except for 6 and 7.
