Objective morality?

[Beet]

Discuss.

[Beet]

I don't understand the argument for 'yes'. Please explain it to me.

I'll bite. I suppose the problem with saying there is no objective morality is that then all morality is subjective - for instance, one could take the subjective relativist position Foucaulf describes above. Well in that case, how do you say that murder, for instance, is wrong? All you can say is you don't like murder, maybe you don't like it a lot, and you really don't want anyone to do it. But if someone else, for whatever reason, really wants to do it, why is their desire invalid, if it is of the same nature as your desire? Two desires of the same nature conflicting, neither is inherently better than the other.

[Beet]

I don't understand the argument for 'yes'. Please explain it to me.

I'll bite. I suppose the problem with saying there is no objective morality is that then all morality is subjective - for instance, one could take the subjective relativist position Foucaulf describes above. Well in that case, how do you say that murder, for instance, is wrong? All you can say is you don't like murder, maybe you don't like it a lot, and you really don't want anyone to do it. But if someone else, for whatever reason, really wants to do it, why is their desire invalid, if it is of the same nature as your desire? Two desires of the same nature conflicting, neither is inherently better than the other.

You can't say murder is wrong. ...

Strictly speaking a sociopath or psychopath cannot be considered to be erring against his own nature. However human society has always done it's best for its own cohesiveness to 'remove' sociopathic elements from it, if those elements do not remove themselves first.

So basically, the only thing that makes us different from sociopaths is that society will try to remove them for reasons of cohesiveness?