Thursday, January 08, 2009

Turning my arguments for moral objectivity upside down

3 comments:

Ilíon said...

So, a fool behaves as a fool, worshipping All The Pretty Shades of Grey -- and fundamentally contradicts himself? Is this ever not the case?

Our fool's purpose is to assert that it is impossible to know whether morality is objective (i.e. "real") or subjective (i.e. "not real") ... and with the unstated therefore that his moral relativism (i.e. morality is "not real") is the truth of the matter.

But what does the fool *immediately* do (as relativists *always* do, sooner or later, generally sooner)? Why, he asserts an objective moral obligation! But that's the very thing he's denying: both that there exist objective moral obligations and that it is possible to know any objective moral obligation did they exist in the first place.

mattghg said...

The author seems to think that if moral truths are objective, they must also be obvious. But I don't see how that follows at all.

Ilíon said...

Mattghg: "The author seems to think that if moral truths are objective, they must also be obvious. But I don't see how that follows at all."

He does far worse than that.

What he's actually asserting is that because *he* will not be convinced that moral obligations are objectively real, then it is impossible for anyone to know that they are ... therefore they are not.


This fool's ploy is a variation of the common demand of 'atheists' that God be a cosmic rapist. God woos us; 'atheists' commonly demand to be forced.