It seems to me that the trouble with objectivist theories of morality are twofold: 1) It doesn't address the question as to what "the good" actually is, and whether virtues are means to achieving the good or if virtues themselves are in essence the good. 2) Let's just say, like Protagoras, that "man is the measure of all things," though in the sense that our conception of the good must be in relation to some definite ideal person, such as the life of a man who enjoys happiness, security, and freedom in the fullest degree, intellectually and sensually, with a high reputation among his peers, enjoying financial prosperity that enables him to live freely, acting to the benefit of his friends and family because he wills it to be so and is able to accomplish whatever his liberal heart desires. Now, in striving to achieve this form of the good, "the good life," as it is called, it seems like we run into the following difficulty when evaluating the morality of behaviors: the individual versus the community (be it family or state) versus the whole of mankind. There are clearly many instances in which the good of the state may conflict with the good of the individual, as demonstrated, for example, in the current debate over the balancing act of individual privacy and state security, and numerous other cases that could be offered. And clearly, sometimes what is good for the state is disastrous to the good of other nations, or humanity as a whole. So, how do you define, and how do you measure, what is good? By you and yours, or by the community, or by mankind?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
