RE: God & Objective Morals
April 17, 2013 at 1:43 pm
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2013 at 1:45 pm by Whateverist.)
I think the quest for objective morality is always predicated on agreement on some set of presuppositions. Like being harmed and therefore doing harm are morally bad, or some such.
But, hypothetically, lets say after exhaustive research we find some small set of moral principles we can all agree on. Would what follows consistently from that small set of moral principles really deserve to be called "objective morality"? I don't think so.
The point is that the so called objective morality is still contingent. If someone is born who does not accept that common core of moral principles we have nothing whatsoever to offer as to why they should accept them .. except that they are failing to fit in with our norms. So contingent morality can never be objective morality.
Even those who accept the common core of principles may disagree on how to resolve conflicts between them, and there will always be conflict. You do hear atheists arguing for objective morality based on reason alone but that must always be contingent on agreement. Or else you have to argue that a person should accept those principles to be rational. Of course nothing can stop the 'immoral' person saying "screw your rationality". If your morality is based on the imperative that one should act rationally, then that is still contingent and no true moral imperative at all. You might try to argue that irrational people are just defective but by then your assumptions will have so corrupted your logic that your project will be dead in the water.
But, hypothetically, lets say after exhaustive research we find some small set of moral principles we can all agree on. Would what follows consistently from that small set of moral principles really deserve to be called "objective morality"? I don't think so.
The point is that the so called objective morality is still contingent. If someone is born who does not accept that common core of moral principles we have nothing whatsoever to offer as to why they should accept them .. except that they are failing to fit in with our norms. So contingent morality can never be objective morality.
Even those who accept the common core of principles may disagree on how to resolve conflicts between them, and there will always be conflict. You do hear atheists arguing for objective morality based on reason alone but that must always be contingent on agreement. Or else you have to argue that a person should accept those principles to be rational. Of course nothing can stop the 'immoral' person saying "screw your rationality". If your morality is based on the imperative that one should act rationally, then that is still contingent and no true moral imperative at all. You might try to argue that irrational people are just defective but by then your assumptions will have so corrupted your logic that your project will be dead in the water.
