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, ...

So, once again I ask why believing that some things are objectively true (even by the strict standards of philosophical debate) is inconsistent with believing that some things aren’t objectively true?”

It risks inconsistency because where ever you decide to draw the line between objective and subjective is arbitrary and ultimately contentious—you get to pick and choose which is which. Moreover, it begs the question: how do you know that the line you draw between objective and subjective is accurate?

Logically speaking, it is far more consistent to start from either an objectivist or a subjectivist stance and see where that logic leads you.

At the same time, there is no need to presume that objective and subjective exhaust all of the possibilities for where one may take a stand.

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