(April 17, 2013 at 11:58 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Considering the above analysis of objectivity with respect to morality, does it follow that morality is arbitrary. It seems to me that objective may not serve as the appropriate way to evaluate moral problems. Perhaps it might be better to focus on whether morality is arbitrary or not. Are there consistent guides, of whatever origin, you can apply to determine if something is fair or just?
I'd say morality is subjective, but certainly not arbitrary. After all, there are numerous things related to moral decisions that are objective facts, and we use those to inform our morality, generally without even thinking. We know, for a fact, that pain is generally bad, and so we opt to define acts that produce pain as immoral ones. We recognize that we're social animals that depend on one another, and so we feel an impulse instilled in us by natural selection to cooperate and not to inflict painful acts on others, too.
Just using the objective data points of the world in which we live, we can construct a pretty good skeleton of a moral system that's then fleshed out by our more subjective views.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!