(October 24, 2013 at 8:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: In the end, I think it comes down to this: morality is about "right" behavior, and establishing rightness of action requires a goal for that action.
And determining if the goal is right requires a pre-existing moral code.
(October 24, 2013 at 8:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If the goal is happiness, the cannibal is right to eat the child. If the goal is preservation of the world, removing people probably doesn't hurt. If the goal is to maintain the social contract, extending mutual safety to all, then the cannibal is wrong to eat the child.
And without a some form of morality, it is not possible to pick which of these goals should be chosen to follow up on and which should be disregarded.
(October 24, 2013 at 8:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: But what objective goals could we look to as a measure for the "rightness" of behaviors? Survival? Pleasure/pain ratio? Adhering to scripture? Choosing any of these is ITSELF a subjective process.
Only if you can find a fault in the argument I just gave. Otherwise, there is an objective way to make that choice.
(October 24, 2013 at 8:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: How would you know if you ever found one? What non-arbitrary or non-subjective criteria could you use to establish that any morality is objective?
I've answered this question thrice already. Is something not getting through?
