CeilingCat
Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007
|
| Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 12 2018,03:36) | | Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 11 2018,13:29) | But what does moral objectivity (or lack thereof) have to do with the accuracy of scientific theories?
(Besides, the problem with objective morals is who gets to decide what those objective morals are. After all, if it's not me doing the deciding, then the decision might be wrong.) |
To be fair, if morality is objective, then all reasonable people should be able to work out what those morals are, so there would be a consensus.
Of course, if morals are objective, then every reasonable person would be able to describe these objective morals, and
FWIW, "the Holocaust was wrong" is not a statement of a moral principle. It's the logical consequence of the moral principle that killing lots of people is wrong. |
I think Barry may also be confusing objective with absolute. It's not like he spends a lot of time thinking things through before reaching for the keyboard, after all.
Objective means more or less that reasonable people agree because of evidence available to all and not just their opinions.
Absolute, on the other hand, means utterly authorative and incapable of error. For instance, if God tells you that some members of a neighboring tribe are killing some of their children as sacrifices, and the moral thing for you to do in response is to kill all of the children, along with all of the adults in the tribe and incidently help yourself to their land and possessions, that is absolutely the moral thing to do because God.
And, as Barry has carefully explained, if you think differently your objections are just a/mat dog poop and he is under no obligation to counter them, again because God.
|
