OT: Objective moral truth

[Rasorow]

oooo....

BTW - for an arguement in line with no Objective Morality see John Stuart Mill's Unitarianism (spelling?) he argues much like Ross that something is only good as a measure of realitive happiness and that there are better acts and worse acts that can be assigned a point scale to measure total goodness.... While the point scale would become objective and the morality (goodness) value it assigns would be objective... it is based on an arbitary base. A base that is subject to the whims of those that make the scale (as all things involving human input are affected by our basis - for info on that one let me know and I will look it up for you but it basicly says that By observing something you have changed it.. think its the Uncertainty Principle...) Thus this objective result is based on a subjective nature and misleading if one is trying to define Objective Morality. It shows that Objective Morality, if it exists cannot be created by humans and has to exist externally from us (as the previous poster - sorry forgot who) mentioned.

Emanuel Kant (my favorite) stated that there was nothing good or moral but good will it self. If a "good" deed was done (helping an old lady accross the street) it was not moral unless it was done out of good will not some need to be nice, praise of neighbors, etc. Thus Objective Morality exists (The morality is based on the good will concept external to human influence) but whether or not it is obtainable by humans is questionable.

My personal philosophy is that there is Objective Morality, it is tied my spiritual beliefs. Without any anchor for morality external to human existance (yes - Human existance... good must always be good and evil most always be evil regardless of the situation of the preceiver). For example.. Captial punishment as an example of this. (Not trying to start another discussion but this is the best example I can think of)We punish murderers as crinmals because they killed someone, an immoral act. Yet when we sentence them to death and thus kill them. If killing is wrong, if it is not moral, then we are also performing an immoral act. Despite that we precieve in the first situation that the criminal killed outside of due process (not a soldier at war, not a police officer defending himself, etc) and the second process is precieved as moral as it followed a socially agreed process (court of law trial), the objective morality has to remain the same. Its either moral or immoral which must be anchored outside of the preciever...

Well, anyrate, something to chew on.

Rasorow