(December 8, 2017 at 2:55 pm)Khemikal Wrote:Quote:That is why abortion is a great example. 200 years ago, no one made the same arguments as supporters do today. So, obviously the early 19th century and 21st century culture reflected differing views on the morality of the issue and if the claim of the existence of objective morality is to be supported, one of them was wrong. But we are to believe there is an objective moral fact-of-the-matter that can be discovered. Please walk me through how that works.No problem. Let's take a look at the justifications that were offered 200 years ago for why abortion was immoral and see if they report true facts? That's really all there is to it. Care to set your favorite Victorian objections to abortion up for consideration?
No, that's not even close to a complete answer. First, you want us to look at 19th century justification through a 21st century cultural lens. Second, you totally ignored how we are to evaluate the 21st century: which has anything but consensus. Third, whatever method you are going to propose in your next post must be capable of producing a moral fact that is good for all time in human past as well as the future--in order to be considered objective.
Now, imagine you are in the 19th century and you are defending moral realism. Would you have arrived at the same conclusion on abortion you are going to show us? If not, then your view that moral facts exist is hypothetical and can't really be known for sure--which is useless as a moral theory.