(2020-10-21, 06:38 PM)Mediochre Wrote: Typically when people try to define moral objectivity they define it so broadly and vaguely as to not trip any of the myriad logical contradictions and fallacies inherent in the concept itself that they effectively define it out of existence. I've yet to see one example where this doesn't happen. And even if someone did somehow give a proper definition, I would only go along with it if I personally agreed with it, which still destroyed the idea.
I know it came off like a joke but I did mention the D&D Alignment Wheel for this reason, that there could be a plurality of moral forces.
I don't think personal agreement destroys the idea, as the existence of morality isn't by necessity binding on actions. And if you did agree with it, it might be that you are tuned in to the actual moral compass of reality. After all once a person speaks of "rights" and the "right thing to do" they're moving into the realm of objective morality.
This isn't to say there aren't a lot of questions involved with the idea of objective morality, but I think most people ultimately do believe in it in some way. And since logical reason rests on [similar] intuitive ground, which means the ground of mathematics is also "mere" feeling, I can't see a good reason to outright dismiss [the idea of] morality as something "out there".
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(This post was last modified: 2020-10-21, 06:56 PM by Sciborg_S_Patel.)
- Bertrand Russell