Ethics

[Mudhammam]

You have given no reason whatsoever to suppose that the truth or falsity of "Health and wealth are the greatest goods" depends on the attitudes and feelings of the person assessing it.  Where is your evidence to support such an assertion?  

Is the "greatest good" an object of knowledge that can be defined by a set of observable facts and interlocking connections to which the substance ("the good") is said to exist prior to my conception of it? No. We don't presume the existence of an individual man to begin only when I arrive at the definition "man," or that a differentiation between "colors" or "numbers" depends on the actual names designated "red" or "3." Yet with any definition of goodness, the opposite is the case, because all we are talking about is an intention or attitude towards an object measurable only by other intentions or attitudes. Can one claim privilege on that account? Not if they wish to justify their claim, as they cannot establish superiority in their statements of truth or falsehood by the measure of successful demonstration through which we typically judge such inquires about objective fact.

If you think I'm wrong, I'd sincerely like to know how.

[bennyboy]

You made the claim that there is no objective morality.  Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to support that.  You have done nothing to show that it is true.  Which means, you are simply begging the question.

Do you have an argument for moral realism or not? I'm tired of people using the burden of proof as an excuse to not add anything to a dialogue. 

+1

The BOP doesn't necessarily go to the one making the most recent claim, but to the one making the claim least supported by direct and simple observation.  One can simply enough look around, see that even among religious people there's no uniform standard of morality, and pretty simply dismiss claims of an objective morality. Just because some dude X years ago asserted objective morality doesn't mean I now have the BOP to disprove that assertion, unless it's found footing in evidence or at least strong logic.

[Pizza]

Do you have an argument for moral realism or not? I'm tired of people using the burden of proof as an excuse to not add anything to a dialogue. 

+1

The BOP doesn't necessarily go to the one making the most recent claim, but to the one making the claim least supported by direct and simple observation.  One can simply enough look around, see that even among religious people there's no uniform standard of morality, and pretty simply dismiss claims of an objective morality.  Just because some dude X years ago asserted objective morality doesn't mean I now have the BOP to disprove that assertion, unless it's found footing in evidence or at least strong logic.

Just imagine debates whether both sides just keep yelling about BOP. 
Bob: No, you have the burden of proof.
Jake: No! You do!
Bob: No you!
Jake: NO! YOU!

Me: UGH! Someone just give an argument already!!!