Re: ESSAY: 'Debunking 'Hippy dippy moral philosophy'

From: Randall Randall (randall@randallsquared.com)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2004 - 11:28:21 MDT


On Jun 16, 2004, at 10:37 AM, fudley wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:07:14 +1200, "Marc Geddes"
>> You were assuming that there would be absolutely
>> no correlation between objective morality and human wants.
>
> No I donít assume that at all, there is a correlation and itís exactly
> what you would expect, from chance.

You are saying the same thing he is.

Is it your contention, then, that if an objective morality
exists, it will necessarily have nothing to do with any
current human morality? That, supposing the existence of
morality which has physical consequences like, say, gravity,
humans will turn out to have no ability to measure the
morality of an action?

>> The meter is supposed to indicate objective morality.
>> By definition it would not indicate that something is
>> 'horribly evil' without very good reasons.
>
> By definition? Objective good is supposed to be an end in itself and is
> complete in itself, it needs no reasons. The true saint is supposed to
> do good because he should do good, not because it will aid him or
> anybody else.

The term "objective" presupposes evidence, and therefore, a "reason".

>> If putting on a green hat on Thursday really had no consequences
>> for you or anyone else, the meter could not possibly designate
>> this as 'horribly evil'.
>
> The positive or negative consequences to a person are irrelevant,
> people
> have nothing to do with it, good and evil are objective not subjective
> remember. The meter says putting on a green hat on Thursday is evil and
> thatís just the way things are, itís like complaining that a voltmeter
> reads 6 volts. However if that is true then I see no reason not to be
> evil. I mean, whatís so good about objective good?

"People have nothing to do with it" is a specific hypothesis
about an objective morality, and your confident assertion that
this is so contradicts your assertion that no such thing exists.

That doesn't mean that the concept of objective morality is
self-contradictory (though it may later be shown to be), merely
that this particular straw man is.

>> a German living in Nazi Germany might have checked the meter
>> about Nazism and the dial might have swung to 'horribly evil'.
>
> The suffering produced by Nazi Germany mean nothing because good and
> evil are not subjective, so the meter could just as easily say it was
> wonderfully virtuous, and that is why I have no use for such a meter.

All your arguments work equally well to 'prove' that there
is no such thing as an objective temperature.

--
Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com>
Property law should use #'EQ , not #'EQUAL .


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT