OST is closed for business but its spirit survives on my blog.

Re: On the Origins of Morality: Supernatural, Biological, ...

Re: On the Origins of Morality: Supernatural, Biological, ...

Just because propositions imply a proposer doesn’t mean that there isn’t objective truth. There is a paradox here which is worth dwelling on.

—Every statement ever made by anyone is a claim to objectivity. Even if they say “in my opinion, I think that the sky is blue” they are still stating an objective truth about their opinion, although not an objective truth about the sky.

—Every statement ever made was made by someone, and therefore is subjective. In a sense, every sentence presupposes the words “in my opinion” prefixed to it.

But statements can be closer to or further from the truth, given their linguistic context. A word has objectivity inasmuch as the speaker and the hearer have an intersection of common meaning for the word. This actually happens quite a lot. Real things are communicated. If it were not so then society would collapse. Nobody is suggesting that propositions are 100% objective apart from their context. But they have a measure of objectivity within their context. They are not 100% subjective, either.

Morality works the same way. Absolute morality can be found as an abstraction, but never as a concrete example. If, for example, I believed that an absolute moral principle was love, that love might manifest in almost opposite ways in different cultures and circumstances. But the principle driving it would still be love. That wouldn’t change.

On the Origins of Morality: Supernatural, Biological, and Relational Possibilities By: Jacob (99 replies) 21 March, 2009 - 03:10