(November 11, 2016 at 12:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(November 11, 2016 at 3:56 am)Ignorant Wrote: 1) No worries. I just appreciate your willingness to seek common understanding! I am saying that human happiness (understood in the classical sense of human fullness/perfection/fulfillment) IS the universal goal of every human. It is what we are all trying to achieve, according to how we subjectively understand it. In other words, whatever any individual's goal turns out to be, it is THEIR interpretation of human fullness. It is the most abstract and general "end" for which all human actions are done. Think less "pleasure" and more "the meaning of life".
2) This is EXACTLY the point. Happiness IS living a full human life WELL. What does that mean? The answer is not easy nor perfectly clear. Arriving at a universal answer and full account of this object may even be impossible. Does this mean any discussion is pointless or that nothing at all can be ascertained about the objective reality? I don't think so. Something tells me that, merely by sharing a common humanity, we would agree on some simple and fundamental aspects of the object (and therefore, will have begun to objectify it).
I think your second point is particularly important. Most oppose the notion of objective morality because people have different opinions about that is most desirable. As they see it, if it were objective then everyone would agree on what is and is not moral. That notion is based on mistake that objectivity entails omniscience. A more relevant objection would be to deny ontological status to things, like an essential human nature, on which natural law/virtue ethics rely.
Moral objectivity may not entail omniscience, but it is pointless without significant knowledge.
