(October 20, 2013 at 8:37 am)bennyboy Wrote: We should also examine the idea of a singular "morality," as an entity. Whatever God is/isn't, or mankind is/isn't, the word morality is itself just a word. So given any specific definition of morality, we will have a different Moral Man who behaves optimally. If we choose to define morality as maximizing the pleasure-to-suffering ratio over all organisms over all time, then presumably there is a theoretical "best action" that will achieve that, and Moral Man will do that action consistently. Similarly, if we choose a different definition, that maximal Moral Man will behave differently, but still be a perfect expression of whatever idea we are trying to express. So I would say we don't even GET to the stage of establishing mores before we fall afoul of subjectivity. Most behaviors are probably both moral and immoral, with that status being not an existential reality, but just the outcome of an arbitrary algorithm.
So in what sense COULD morality be called objective? We have to remove the ambiguity that comes from viewing one behavior through multiple definitions. We need a single definition, which humans are never going to be able/willing to arrive at.
If universal human agreement was required fro anything to have a singular definition, then there wouldn't be any singular definitions. The fact that different philosophers disagree on what morality means does not preclude it from having a singular definition, nor does is preclude us from figuring out what that singular definition is.
The one thing that all the ideas and definitions about morality have in common is that they are all about "what a person should do" or "how a person should act". Common sense says that if there is going to be an objective, specific and singular definition of morality, that would be it - "morality is a conceptual guide regarding how a person should act". The subjective part comes in when different philosophers add on different addendums such as "how a person should act in order to maximize pleasure/pain ratio" or "how a person should act in order to achieve certain virtues". Without such additions, the given definition fits the description of all ideas regarding morality known to us regardless of any subject's will. So, if there is going to be an objective meaning to the word morality, that would be it.
Thus, any actions or principles which can be rationally derived from this definition would be a part of objective morality. That is, given this definition, your hypothetical, ideal "moral man" would act consistently with any "best actions" you can figure out from it.
(October 20, 2013 at 8:37 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think that points again to a God being the only possible source of an objective morality. And since we've already agreed it can't be a MADE morality (because therefore subjective), it must be the expression of God or part of God's nature.
So, if humans can't agree on a specific definition, you need a god to provide one? That sounds like classic god-of-the-gaps to me.
