Logic AS morality.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

OUr class resources, book, and teacher try to PROOVE morals are objective and that morals are SUbjetive in their various sections. We aren't just looking for what is moral, how, and when. We are looking for proof of origin and actual reason to believe something is subjective/objective.


This is why I care about proof. THat is the primary goal.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Now. What actually led you to your belief in Objectivism? What drew you to it, and the particular theory your chose? I assume you are a deontologist? Was it a specific reading? Lecture?

[Kuroneko]

Ok. I will say it. Morality is not Objective. It's subjective. Purely. There is no absolute right/wrong outside culture and the people within it.

Good! I can respect that position as you've stated it here, because it is logically consistent. However, it doesn't mean that specific theories of ethics are not objectivist! It just means they're not correct.

According to all the books on ethics I have, the teacher, and the entire curriculum, if your culture creates ethical systems or if they are construct of that culture, they are considered relative.

Really? Give me an argument to that effect, or quote the full definition that is used in your books.

I understand what you are saying. I don't think they are not objective because I don't believe in them. I don't find them objective because I find them subjective, and they can't both be subjective and objective at the same time.

Once again, give me the full definition you're using. So far it's only "I don't think it is so".
[/quote]

[Kuroneko]

Now. What actually led you to your belief in Objectivism? What drew you to it, and the particular theory your chose? I assume you are a deontologist? Was it a specific reading? Lecture?

My argument for ethical objectivism is the same one I have stated against Bugsby in the first post of the fifth page.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Really? Give me an argument to that effect, or quote the full definition that is used in your books.

The exactly definition is really short though. It's "culture creates morality. It is relative to each culture; as such, it is both right and wrong respectively."

Good! I can respect that position as you've stated it here, because it is logically consistent. However, it doesn't mean that specific theories of ethics are not objectivist! It just means they're not correct.

Yea. I don't know what I was saying before. It must be too late when I do this. Anyway, It's not that I don't think they are non-relativistic according to the objective sense that they use, it's that I just am a subjectivist.

I am trying to go a step further. Not just saying society creates it or that it is non-relativist objectivism. I want to see if it's actually proovable either way, through research, empiricism, and observation.


Now, in terms of correctness, I think they are good as a personal opinion, but then again, I can't say they are to be followed, since I believe in aggregate cultural creation, and not in subjectivism on a personal basis. As I mentioned earlier, I think it began like that, however.


I don't think that having proof would make a theory objective or not objective. I should say that too. I just am trying to use that as a criterion for why someone would call it such, from a neutral perspective. By all means, they can think they are non/ or relative, but as of yet, it cannot prove either, so I see them as all largely speculation.

I admit, some things did confuse me, espeically the Rand philsophy, because my book implies that Objective theories aren't opinions, and if they aren't opinions, what are they?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

My argument for ethical objectivism is the same one I have stated against Bugsby in the first post of the fifth page.

AHh ok. I missed that one. I will read it.

[Darth Wong]

Rand Objectivism IS objectivism. It isn't an opinion. how can you not agree with it if it's not an opinion, but an objective, non-relative moral code? If you don't agree with it, then the idea of morality not being an opinion seems bogus. If you can disagree with Rand, you can disagree with the others. YOu might as wel ljust make up your own morality that's better.

I've italicized your strawman of my (and by proxy, all of ethical philosophers') claims. Opinions, even those without a single iota of evidence for their validity, can be objectivist as the word is defined by ethical philosophers.

I think now you're just trolling.

This cuts to the heart of a problem with ethical philosophy: its wholehearted surrender to the self-declared terminology of the proponents of any given system. If Ayn Rand decides to call her system of ethics "objectivism", which naturally makes the (false) implication that it is somehow more grounded in objective reality than any other system, then for some reason, ethical philosophers say "OK", accept this rhetorically clever but rather misleading terminology, and thus invite eternal conflict over the fact that objectivism is implied to be the most objective ethical system simply by virtue of having chosen the right name.

It makes me think that I should write a book outlining my personal system of ethics which is called "pure-logic-ism", and then fill it with conclusions derived from randomly selected quotes of Internet bloggers, secure in the knowledge that it will always be referred to as pure-logic-ism anyway.

[Kuroneko]

Really? Give me an argument to that effect, or quote the full definition that is used in your books.

The exactly definition is really short though. It's "culture creates morality. It is relative to each culture; as such, it is both right and wrong respectively."

That's not really an argument at all. It just states it as fact. Very few would dispute that morality has been created by people, but there is no reason given as to why that makes it relativistic.

Now, in terms of correctness, I think they are good as a personal opinion, but then again, I can't say they are to be followed, since I believe in aggregate cultural creation, and not in subjectivism on a personal basis. As I mentioned earlier, I think it began like that, however.

You may be interested in Bugsby's account of morality [second post of the third page]. He bases his morality on society, but later [fifth page] I argue that his ethical system is actually objectivist.

I don't think that having proof would make a theory objective or not objective. I should say that too. I just am trying to use that as a criterion for why someone would call it such, from a neutral perspective. By all means, they can think they are non/ or relative, but as of yet, it cannot prove either, so I see them as all largely speculation.

Ethical objectivism is a matter of definition, not proof. If their principles do not refer to anyone's moral beliefs, then it is objectivist. It's as simple as that.

I admit, some things did confuse me, espeically the Rand philsophy, because my book implies that Objective theories aren't opinions, and if they aren't opinions, what are they?

It's a confusion of levels. Moral opinions which do not refer to the beliefs of any group of people are objectivist. That's quite a loose definition. For example, the following may be an arbitrary belief, but it doesn't call for moral judgment by any group of persons:

• It is immoral to wear red clothing on Sundays.

However, the following is both based on and refers to belief about what is moral:

• On Sundays, it is immoral to commit deeds that Joe considers evil.

See the difference? The real test is this: If the moral principle was true (and here you might have to really strain your suspention of disbelief), would anyone's moral opinions make any difference? The former doesn't care what anyone believes. It is objectivist. The latter calls for Joe [McCarthy] to make a judgement on whether or not an act is evil. It is relativist.


As for lucidity of Rand's ethics... I won't get into that. Yes, it is objectivist, but only by a technicality. But that doesn't make it right. Or even coherent, for that matter.

[Kuroneko]

This cuts to the heart of a problem with ethical philosophy: its wholehearted surrender to the self-declared terminology of the proponents of any given system. If Ayn Rand decides to call her system of ethics "objectivism", which naturally makes the (false) implication that it is somehow more grounded in objective reality than any other system, then for some reason, ethical philosophers say "OK", accept this rhetorically clever but rather misleading terminology, and thus invite eternal conflict over the fact that objectivism is implied to be the most objective ethical system simply by virtue of having chosen the right name.

Ayn Rand's adoption of the term for her own purpose has caused no small amount of outrage. However, Rand published primarily as a novelist, not through philosophical journals. With a very large influx of would-be philosophers, many of them not caring for traditional definitions of terms, most of the ethical philosopher community simply didn't stand a chance. It's a very unfortunate turn of events, but I think it would be a mistake to call this surrender "wholehearted".

It makes me think that I should write a book outlining my personal system of ethics which is called "pure-logic-ism", and then fill it with conclusions derived from randomly selected quotes of Internet bloggers, secure in the knowledge that it will always be referred to as pure-logic-ism anyway.

That actually sounds rather interesting, although I doubt it would make ethical philosophy take notice and adopt it.

[Darth Wong]

Ayn Rand's adoption of the term for her own purpose has caused no small amount of outrage. However, Rand published primarily as a novelist, not through philosophical journals. With a very large influx of would-be philosophers, many of them not caring for traditional definitions of terms, most of the ethical philosopher community simply didn't stand a chance. It's a very unfortunate turn of events, but I think it would be a mistake to call this surrender "wholehearted".

OK, I'll grant that there was probably resistance, but let's face it: Ayn Rand's self-declaration of her particular philosophy as the most objective philosophy in existence by simple virtue of nomenclature is a gigantic travesty and it has been accepted by all ethical philosophers, hence your sharply worded criticism of those who refuse to go along with this.

It makes me think that I should write a book outlining my personal system of ethics which is called "pure-logic-ism", and then fill it with conclusions derived from randomly selected quotes of Internet bloggers, secure in the knowledge that it will always be referred to as pure-logic-ism anyway.

That actually sounds rather interesting, although I doubt it would make ethical philosophy take notice and adopt it.

Obviously, I would need to have a lot of groupies who take Philosophy courses

[Bugsby]

I think at this point we're going to have to agree to disagree. Ethics is such a vague topic that when I approach it from one side and you approach it from another, I don't think there's much chance of us meeting up in the middle.

Although this idea of pure-logic-ism intrigues me. You say you need philosophy major groupies, Wong? I'll get a few friends together and see what I can root up....

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

That is one of the major problems I have. THey call these things objective and they are accepted as such, when they really are just relative creations.

I don't understand how you opinion, Kureneko, which states that morality is not relative yet created by people, for people. That goes against the very definition.

The Idea of Moral Relativism, at least how it's been taught, is that non-relative morality is not a product or creation of people, but a discovery. Relative = varying from society to society or person to person because people create it. They are the measures of morality.

Objectivism( non relative) states the exact opposite. THey are not created by people.

To avoid being called a subjectivist, it seems to me that a philosopher of ethics (like Rand) can just slap terminology onto their theory to avoid it being "an opinion," and that makes it objective (non relative).



can someone explain something to me about Rand Objectivism as a philosophy? What is bad and good in your opinion?

1. I went to some of the sites and looked in my book, and it is put in a very postive light.

A. It supports homosexuality, natural rights, capitalism etc... It also goes on to support a lot of other good claims, like a firm basis in reality, denial of solipsism and skepticism.

B.

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

C.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.

(this is actuallly the exact phrase used to describe deontology in my book).

D.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

I sense this to be somewhat of a problem, but only in the sense of full-capitalism and separation. What else am I missing?

On many aspects, it doesn't really seem as bad, or worse than some others also labled objective.

E.

The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute)

This sounds like definition subsection number 2 given to describe Kant's categorical imperitive. Man is an end unto himself. Survival also seems like a good ideal no?



2. One thing I tend to appreciate when i study these theories is the cultural context from which they evolved. DO you think Rand went a bit overboard in her analysis of society? She came from Soviet Russia, I think, and she was horrified at that extreme Authoritarian view of collectivism, so she "flipped out" and went the complete opposite way?

3. Right off the bat, i can see some things that are problems, but is the ENTIRE ethical system batty? Maybe they are not giving the whole story, but from what I have read, the modern version of it seems to coincide with commonly held concepts here. That is very confusing.



Maybe the problem is the way this is taught?

[Kuroneko]

OK, I'll grant that there was probably resistance, but let's face it: Ayn Rand's self-declaration of her particular philosophy as the most objective philosophy in existence by simple virtue of nomenclature is a gigantic travesty and it has been accepted by all ethical philosophers, hence your sharply worded criticism of those who refuse to go along with this.

My criticism has something to do with Rand? Then you believe that the ethical relativism vs. ethical objectivism distinction as I've presented it here is some sort of adoption of Rand's nomenclature? You are mistaken. Rand's Objectivism did not come onto the scene until the publication of The Fountainhead in 1943. The philosophical distinction came at least about forty years before. It was probably even earlier than that, but was not seriously considered until Westermarck, ca. 1900-1910. Rand bastardized the term for her own purpose, and she succeeded simply because she argued directly to the public through her novels, rather than through philosophical journals. You are correct in that they did eventually surrender--after all, ethical philosophers are influenced much more by the public than, say, physicists, but this doesn't have anything to do with my criticism regarding ethical relativism/objectivism, except in the most oblique of ways.

Obviously, I would need to have a lot of groupies who take Philosophy courses

If you like, I'll even help.

[Kuroneko]

I think at this point we're going to have to agree to disagree. Ethics is such a vague topic that when I approach it from one side and you approach it from another, I don't think there's much chance of us meeting up in the middle.

You can drop out of the debate at any time. However, since there is still the unresolved issue of whether your ethical system, which you based on society's concerns, is actually objectivist, be aware that I will count it as an implicit consession.

[Kuroneko]

I don't understand how you opinion, Kureneko, which states that morality is not relative yet created by people, for people. That goes against the very definition.

No, it doesn't. You confuse the point of creation with its content.

The Idea of Moral Relativism, at least how it's been taught, is that non-relative morality is not a product or creation of people, but a discovery. Relative = varying from society to society or person to person because people create it. They are the measures of morality.

I've made an argument on this very issue earlier in this thread, and even pointed you specifically to it. If you have a counter-argument, or you find a problem with it, by all means, post it. Until then, incessant repetition does not make your case, nor does it demonstrate any problem in my position.

Objectivism( non relative) states the exact opposite. THey are not created by people.

A strawman of ethical objectivism. I've posted the definition many times, and provided several examples. Either (1) show that my definition is incompatible with those actually used in philosophical literature, (2) show that my examples do not meet the definition, or both. Again, repetetition does not make your case.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

strawman of ethical objectivism. I've posted the definition many times, and provided several examples. Either (1) show that my definition is incompatible with those actually used in philosophical literature, (2) show that my examples do not meet the definition, or both. Again, repetetition does not make your case.

I posted the definition too,and it differs from yours. Repetition from a book does make my case, since the book counts. It's not a strawman if that's what the authors/philosophers say. Objectivism is non-relative and therefore not created by people. Ethical Relativism is relative to and created by people. That's the very nature of it. I don't know what definitino youa re using, but it's far different from any book/lecture/professor I have ever had.

I don't find a problem with your argument, but it's not based off of the definition of moral relativism/objectivism. Created by people equates to relative in every text I have, and I am not about to disagree with the classes I am paying for

I've made an argument on this very issue earlier in this thread, and even pointed you specifically to it. If you have a counter-argument, or you find a problem with it, by all means, post it. Until then, incessant repetition does not

I am not saying anything. There is nothing to say. I don't believe in absolute/non-relative principles, and neither do anthropologists who study culture.

No, it doesn't. You confuse the point of creation with its content.

I have to say you are wrong here, since every definition states the exact opposite. Relative to culture = made by culture and different from culture to culture. Subjectivism people make up their own individual moralities. Ethical Conventional Relativism = culture makes the morality codes. That is it. I am staring RIGHT at my text and right at my lecture notes.

My anthropology book says the EXACT same thing, and it reaffirms that culture makes morality/morality is relative to culture and the people within it. It is not objective, there is no reason to believe it is objective. There is no way to prove there are standards you "discover" or that there is anything intrinsically wrong/right. You can't, since it's relative. If you were able to prove it, that would mean it's not relativ

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

You can drop out of the debate at any time. However, since there is still the unresolved issue of whether your ethical system, which you based on society's concerns, is actually objectivist, be aware that I will count it as an implicit consession.

I don't know what he is talking about, but I believe whatever a society says is moral IS moral. There is nothing relative about non-relativism, and Conventional Ethical Relativism IS relative.

Concerns difffer from society to society, and their wants, needs, and desires make them issue moral codes which THEY create. What they want is what they make. There is no standard other than individual culture.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

But as for the talk. I really should be going. I will let you debate bugsby about the "objectivism" non-relativim cultural relativism

I have to go study Rand's Objectivism for a test.

[Kuroneko]

I have to say you are wrong here, since every definition states the exact opposite. Relative to culture = made by culture and different from culture to culture. Subjectivism people make up their own individual moralities. Ethical Conventional Relativism = culture makes the morality codes. That is it. I am staring RIGHT at my text and right at my lecture notes.

If there is a common human nature, ala Rousseau, or perhaps just at the level of basic needs, then just because people create it, does not automatically imply ethical relativism. The most obvious example of this is secular humanism, which simply uses this idea more than any other system. Objectivism really rests on a supposition: if it was true, would anyone's judgment of it matter? If yes, it is relativist. If not, it is objectivist. which simply uses this idea more extensively that others. Incidently, the argument I've made that you continue to ignore, uses essentially this idea, except in slightly more general terms.

A significant litmus test: can your ethical system declare Nazi doctrine to be immoral, without needing to assume that you or your particular environment (e.g., culture or society) is in any way more 'special' than others? If yes, your system is likely objectivist. If not, it is definitely relativist.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

And that's not the idea of Conventional Ethical Relativsm I am talking about, since that's definitly not what's being taught/in book

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Incidently, the argument I've made that you continue to ignore

I am not ignoring it. It just has absolutly nothign to do with my opinion. Maybe it should be direct toward bugsby. I still don't know from where you get your definition, since 3 of my books say Relative = morality created by humans and not independent of them.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism

"Metaphysics" is the study of the kinds of things that exist in the universe. Some things in the universe are made of physical stuff, such as rocks; and perhaps other things are nonphysical in nature, such as thoughts, spirits, and gods. The metaphysical component of metaethics involves discovering specifically whether moral values are eternal truths that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply human conventions. There are two general directions that discussions of this topic take, one other-worldly and one this-worldly. Proponents of the “other-worldly” view typically hold that moral values are objective in the sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond subjective human conventions. They also hold that they are absolute, or eternal, in that they never change, and also that they are universal insofar as they apply to all rational creatures around the world and throughout time.

The second and more this-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality follows in the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as that articulated by Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus, and denies the objective status of moral values Technically skeptics did not reject moral values themselves, but only denied that values exist as spirit-like objects, or as divine commands in the mind of God. Moral values, they argued, are strictly human inventions, a position that has since been called moral relativism. There are two distinct forms of moral relativism. The first is individual relativism, which holds that individual people create their own moral standards.

The second is cultural relativism which maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of one’s society – and not simply in the preferences of individual people. This view was advocated by Sextus, and in more recent centuries by Michel Montaigne and William Graham Sumner. In addition to espousing skepticism and relativism, “this-worldly” approaches to the metaphysical status of moralitydeny the absolute and universal nature of morality and hold instead that moral values in fact change from society to society throughout time and throughout the world.

That's one of my sources. Now maybe I can't get it the way YOU are saying it, but I understand the way my book says it and the other sources I have. To me, it's saying that morality differes and is created by either the individual or through societal approval.

I don't know of anywhere that says Relative doesn't = created by people. That's the exact opinion of Relativists. They don't exist independently, they are either created and maintained by culture or individuals. If they believe it to be true, it is for them, since there is no justifiable standard.

[Kuroneko]

I am not ignoring it. It just has absolutly nothign to do with my opinion.

It has everything to do with the question "how can people make morality and still be objectivist?", which is the entire point of the discussion I'm having with you, since you contend it is impossible.

That's one of my sources. Now maybe I can't get it the way YOU are saying it, but I understand the way my book says it and the other sources I have. To me, it's saying that morality differes and is created by either the individual or through societal approval.

Aha! You're now on the verge of getting my point. An ethical relativist might posit a principle like this:

• An action is moral if, and only if, it meets societal approval.

This principle is obviously relativist, since it stats that beliefs about what is moral dictate what is actually moral. On the other hand, a principle like this is objectivist:

• Any action that, if left unchecked, would destroy society is immoral.

It is objectivist because of a simple fact: society can be wrong about what is actually in its interest. It is conceivable, even if highly implausible, for there to be a society that believes that a certain act-type is acceptable (e.g., 'killing people whimsically is not immoral'), and yet if left unchecked this type of action would lead to that society's doom.

... There are two general directions that discussions of this topic take, one other-worldly and one this-worldly. Proponents of the “other-worldly” view typically hold that moral values are objective in the sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond subjective human conventions. They also hold that they are absolute, or eternal, in that they never change, and also that they are universal insofar as they apply to all rational creatures around the world and throughout time.

Which is interesting, but completely ass-backwards. My conclusion is that your book is horribly biased: it paints all moral objectivists as being comitted to a kind of Platonism, which is an absurd strawman. Before you say "that's their definition, and yours is different", please humor me for a minute.

Utilitarianism does not need for its principle to "exist in a spirit-like realm". In the end, all it is is simply a proposition. It has existence only in the same sense that the statement "some ravens are black" does. If utilitarianism is correct, then this proposition just happens to be morally binding--for all moral agents throughout all time. That's all an ethical objectivist should claim. Similarly, Kant does not need for his Categorical Imperative to hold some kind existence that is more special than that of any other imperative. Its existence is no more nor less than that of any other imperative, like "pass the ketchup."

I contend that both utilitiarianism and Kantian ethics are classed under ethical objectivism by an overwhelming majority of ethical philosophers. Perusal of the literature, including textbooks, easily confirms this empirical fact. Neither of these systems hold any sort of special existential status for their respective principles (at least, no more nor less than that of any other proposition and imperative); they simply argue that those principles are morally binding.

Yet the definition above insists that they must do so. Obviously, they cannot both be correct. Therefore, either

• The author of the above definition is correct, and an overwhelmind majority of the ethical philosopher community consistently fail to understand or apply it correctly; or
• The definition above was written by someone biased or confused, and somehow attached the position of methaethical realism, a related but entirely separate position.

It seems like a straightforward choice as to which explanation is the most reasonable.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Aha! You're now on the verge of getting my point. An ethical relativist might posit a principle like this:

* An action is moral if, and only if, it meets societal approval.

This principle is obviously relativist, since it stats that beliefs about what is moral dictate what is actually moral. On the other hand, a principle like this is objectivist:

* Any action that, if left unchecked, would destroy society is immoral.

It is objectivist because of a simple fact: society can be wrong about what is actually in its interest. It is conceivable, even if highly implausible, for there to be a society that believes that a certain act-type is acceptable (e.g., 'killing people whimsically is not immoral'), and yet if left unchecked this type of action would lead to that society's doom.

I always thought the first one was relativist. The second one would be relativist only if it depended on what the person/culture said. If it didn't it would be objective. If you were to say left unchecked, you shouldn't do this; it can still be an opinion/subjective. That could be one moral code approved and set forth by one community. Another community doesn't have to follow it.

As my teacher said. A rule as such would be practical, but praticality is not morality, and you can't even go from a survivalist perspective without commiting the "naturalist" fallacy, so that entire idea is shot. Survival isn't moral accoring to what I have read in lecture material.

Many cultures can even agree on it. No one said their opinions can't be the same. They can all just have the same basic believe. I don't see that as being universal in the sense that it's divorced from people's belief. It either can be so, or not. Even if it leads to the societies doom, so would other "moral" ideas, like sacrificing oneself to help others. You are leading deliberitly to your doom. That is one reason they say survival of one, or even a group isn't moral. It's biological/nature based.

Which is interesting, but completely ass-backwards. My conclusion is that your book is horribly biased: it paints all moral objectivists as being comitted to a kind of Platonism, which is an absurd strawman. Before you say "that's their definition, and yours is different", please humor me for a minute.

This isn't from my book. I cut and pasted this from a LECTURE from a university webpage BY a professor of Ethics, so I highly doubt it's "ass-backwards," at least in the sense that it provides basic information. I don't agree with the Objective = "teh ueber," but the basic info is very reliable. THIS is what objectivism is, and my book agrees.

Utilitarianism does not need for its principle to "exist in a spirit-like realm"

What htey mean by spirit realm is either a "real of perfect moral forms" or the basic universe. Peolple discover these moral principles that exist independently of humanity. That's what ethicists agree is objectivism.

That's all an ethical objectivist should claim.

I agree that's all they should do, but that isn't all they do do as I have just shown. They say it comes either from some type of Form OR discovered from the universe. It is explicitly NOT created by humans.

Yet the definition above insists that they must do so. Obviously, they cannot both be correct. Therefore, either

* The author of the above definition is correct, and an overwhelmind majority of the ethical philosopher community consistently fail to understand or apply it correctly; or
* The definition above was written by someone biased or confused, and somehow attached the position of methaethical realism, a related but entirely separate position.

Well. I have heard of meta-ethics, and it's the study of not what ought to be, but where morals come from. Are they human creations or are they external to humans. They say they are external to humans and discovered.

On the normative side, the site/book also explains that morality is objective; it doesn't come from/originate from humans, and it describes normatively what ought to be without appealing to human creation or belief/opinion.

I highly doubt the definition in a majority of sources I have is wrong, and I also doubt that ethical philosophers fail to understand what Ethics is.
Since most use the same definition, or a close varient, I have no option but to trust it.


Personally. I like some aspects of meta-ethical skepticism better, but that's slighly different.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Although, I don't believe ALL professors:


FOr example. I read one lecture that said that it is invalid to say that objectivism doesn't exist because there is no proof, and that subjectivism exists.

I agree. You can't automatically say that something doesn't exist because there is no proof..But wtf is the point in saying it DOES exist? Would you say an invisible lawn gnome existed or God if yo ucouldn't have a shred of proof for it, when right next to it, you can see that people have visible lawn gnomes?

I agree you can say: NO proof = no reason to believe, but he didn't mention that.


At the same time, one can say, just because you can't provide proof of Objectivsm doesn't mean that Subjectivism automatically exists.

I don't think it exists by default either, yet for some reason he says that's what people believe.