Objective Standard for Goodness!

[bennyboy]

I think Desire Utilitarianism is a very good attempt at an objective standard.

The author, Alonzo Fyfe was a member on the old Internet Infidels Discussion Board before it melted down. I developed a lot of respect for this guy when I was there. That doesn't make him infallible; just thought I'd throw that out there. I personally admire this guy for his logical thinking and intelligence.

I think you could simplify this position a lot, because in essence, it seems to be a very-well worded way of saying that (and I'm reading between the lines here) absent an alien entity which may impose goodness, we may simply conflate subjective intent with its objective mechanism.

In other words, desires, while not uniform across the species, are themselves objective in the sense that no conscious agent is ultimately responsible for them.

The problem is that Jew killing, child rape, and voting for Trump all seem then to callable by the term "good," though most sensible people would support none of these things as good.  I suppose we could extrapolate the average desire of the human species and say that whatever goals we collectively have could be called good, not for the individuals, but for a kind of archetypal Man of which we are all one face. In the end, our current mores in combination with the laws of a democratic people probably approximate that state reasonably well, actually.

In fact, it might be that BY DEFINITION, we always achieve this kind of definition of goodness as a species, by definition.

[Mystic]

The proofs and great signs of God, his beautiful names, those instances of the holy spirit, are the only way possible for morality to be objective. Theists who acknowledge God and objective reality, but try to escape his proofs, that are the means to know ourselves and God and the guidance from him towards him, are believing in God but then doing away with that which connect us to him and denying the only way to know anything about him including the witnessing vision of himself and all that reason testifies to with the sword of honesty.

And love to the family of the reminder is hence the definition of goodness for all those who hear the message and comprehend it and are aware of the vision of the absolute and the connecting witnesses who are proofs of God upon his creation, and evil is but to hate them and deny them.

The navigating Captains are not something we can escape, and neither should we just acknowledge inward guidance of light but then let whoever wants to claim representation of it in the outward, as the Torah explains, all misguidance is from people taking the name of God and naming themselves with it and shows all goodness is in submitting through those who he brings out (Moses) and sets them (Seth) as the Name of God (Samuel) as means of relief (Noah) and are all what people ask God for (Saul).

This is one reason among many I can never be a Deist or a Theist without religion again.

[Neo-Scholastic]

There is no reliance on wonky metaphysics here. I simply agree with Plato that there is a such thing as the truth. And while there are varying degrees of familiarity with the truth, you either know it or you don't. It isn't a subjective thing.

...and to the degree that truth is desirable it is good. The metaphysical aspect of it has to do with whether or not truth-as-such, or Truth, is necessary for there to be any particular facts. And so, metaphysically, if there is truth-as-such and it is desirable then it follows that there is good-as-such, or the Good.

[chimp3]

Uh hem !The OP is about sensory taste not moral truth.

[brewer]

Moral truth is like communion wafers.

[Angrboda]

Moral truth is like communion wafers.

Melts in your mouth, not in your hands?

[brewer]

Moral truth is like communion wafers.

Melts in your mouth, not in your hands?

Naw, even they think it tastes sucky yet they'll choke it down for a chance at the prize. 

Religious version of Fear Factor.

[EgoDeath]

I like the taste of cunt!

I don't know if I'd bottle it up and sell it at market, but I agree for the most part.

I don't know if there is an objective standard for good.

[The Grand Nudger]

What standard do you use, then..and from whence do you draw any authority?

What is good and bad, anyway, what do those words even mean?

[ignoramus]

easy!

good = taste yummy
bad = taste yucky