To the OP:
Vulcan, I would like to suggest a pragmatic compromise of sorts. In the same way that anyone can know that something is without knowing what the thing is, people can have objective moral theories (in the sense that such hypotheses are derived from experience, properly basic beliefs*, and objective facts) but because uncertainty is part of the human condition the best we can do is make moral systems (in the the same way we devise systems to perform complex processes with greater reliability)...and most so-called moral systems are basically heuristics of various accuracy and helpfulness.
I say helpfulness because, as I see it, the value of a heuristic comes from its reliability and fittingness for various intellectual tasks, not necessarily its veracity or insight into fundamental reality. For example, it seems right and proper for policy makers and public servants to adopt Utilitarianism and Rawlsian "veils of ignorance", whereas, a captain of industry may attribute his or her success to steadfast adherence to "common sense" principles summarized by catchy aphorisms and traditional proverbs. Or as another example, the dramatic testimonies of people whose turn to Christ turned their lives. The truth is everyone navigates the moral landscape using multiple heuristics everyday. My driving behavior during the morning commute reflects the Kantian approach of "what if everyone drove like that?" - keep up with the pace of traffic, share the road, etc. My work opinions are often informed by utilitarian considerations within the limits of inviolate guidelines. That vacillation between various ethic systems could be considered a limited form of moral relativism. I.e. there are moral facts that are easy to discern but creating a system that readily and infallibly produces morally acceptable outcomes for all circumstance is IMHO impossible. The best to which we can aspire for any system is to make morally acceptable choices most of the time under most circumstances.
But doesn't my use of value-laden terms like "best" and "acceptable" imply a meta-moral system to decide between moral systems. A skeptic might say that I am just pushing the problem back. To this I say, our common humanity adequately serves as an objective moral standard. It means something to be human. And because it means something to be human, there is an empirical data set to which everyone can refer. When we try to convince others to "do the right thing" we generally appeal to their humanity. I suspect if there actually were Klingons, we would fully expect their morality would reflect something of what it essentially means to be Klingon.
In summary, I could consider myself a moral relativist in the sense that no one system is sufficient to cover all the nuance of a truly human life experience but...that does not mean that all moral systems are equal...So deciding which moral system to apply, in my estimation, is more like cultivating a discernment of one's own humanity and that of others. Wisdom. Here I'd like to speak to you, vulcanlogic, because the Ephesians quote you hate tacitly accepts the institution of slavery, it plants a idea that once acknowledged makes slavery abhorrent and that idea is that slaves and masters share a common humanity.
* which are many such as the belief in the following: 1) independent physical reality, 2) other minds, 3) the efficacy of reason, etc.
Vulcan, I would like to suggest a pragmatic compromise of sorts. In the same way that anyone can know that something is without knowing what the thing is, people can have objective moral theories (in the sense that such hypotheses are derived from experience, properly basic beliefs*, and objective facts) but because uncertainty is part of the human condition the best we can do is make moral systems (in the the same way we devise systems to perform complex processes with greater reliability)...and most so-called moral systems are basically heuristics of various accuracy and helpfulness.
I say helpfulness because, as I see it, the value of a heuristic comes from its reliability and fittingness for various intellectual tasks, not necessarily its veracity or insight into fundamental reality. For example, it seems right and proper for policy makers and public servants to adopt Utilitarianism and Rawlsian "veils of ignorance", whereas, a captain of industry may attribute his or her success to steadfast adherence to "common sense" principles summarized by catchy aphorisms and traditional proverbs. Or as another example, the dramatic testimonies of people whose turn to Christ turned their lives. The truth is everyone navigates the moral landscape using multiple heuristics everyday. My driving behavior during the morning commute reflects the Kantian approach of "what if everyone drove like that?" - keep up with the pace of traffic, share the road, etc. My work opinions are often informed by utilitarian considerations within the limits of inviolate guidelines. That vacillation between various ethic systems could be considered a limited form of moral relativism. I.e. there are moral facts that are easy to discern but creating a system that readily and infallibly produces morally acceptable outcomes for all circumstance is IMHO impossible. The best to which we can aspire for any system is to make morally acceptable choices most of the time under most circumstances.
But doesn't my use of value-laden terms like "best" and "acceptable" imply a meta-moral system to decide between moral systems. A skeptic might say that I am just pushing the problem back. To this I say, our common humanity adequately serves as an objective moral standard. It means something to be human. And because it means something to be human, there is an empirical data set to which everyone can refer. When we try to convince others to "do the right thing" we generally appeal to their humanity. I suspect if there actually were Klingons, we would fully expect their morality would reflect something of what it essentially means to be Klingon.
In summary, I could consider myself a moral relativist in the sense that no one system is sufficient to cover all the nuance of a truly human life experience but...that does not mean that all moral systems are equal...So deciding which moral system to apply, in my estimation, is more like cultivating a discernment of one's own humanity and that of others. Wisdom. Here I'd like to speak to you, vulcanlogic, because the Ephesians quote you hate tacitly accepts the institution of slavery, it plants a idea that once acknowledged makes slavery abhorrent and that idea is that slaves and masters share a common humanity.
* which are many such as the belief in the following: 1) independent physical reality, 2) other minds, 3) the efficacy of reason, etc.
<insert profound quote here>
