1
Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?
« on: Today at 02:34:33 »
IMO there are two interpretations of the word "objective" which cause much of disagreements in discussions about morality.
The hard interpretation says that objective means independent from any observer. A statement can be objectively true or false even when no one is observing or verifying it. For example, the existence of the sun is objectively true even if there's no conscious entity to observe it.
The soft interpretation says that objective means independent from whoever makes the observation/evaluation. It implicitly assumes that there's always conscious entities to make the observation.
By definition, morality exists to distinguish between good and bad things. This distinction requires a goal as the evaluation criteria, or something to compare against. In turn, it requires a conscious entity to pursue the goal.
Those who said that there's objective morality must have used the soft interpretation, because otherwise, they are making an oxymoronic statement. On the other hand, hard interpretation leads to the conclusion that there's no objective morality.
To avoid confusion, I used the word universal moral standard instead of objective morality, which needs to implicitly use soft interpretation of the word "objective".
The hard interpretation says that objective means independent from any observer. A statement can be objectively true or false even when no one is observing or verifying it. For example, the existence of the sun is objectively true even if there's no conscious entity to observe it.
The soft interpretation says that objective means independent from whoever makes the observation/evaluation. It implicitly assumes that there's always conscious entities to make the observation.
By definition, morality exists to distinguish between good and bad things. This distinction requires a goal as the evaluation criteria, or something to compare against. In turn, it requires a conscious entity to pursue the goal.
Those who said that there's objective morality must have used the soft interpretation, because otherwise, they are making an oxymoronic statement. On the other hand, hard interpretation leads to the conclusion that there's no objective morality.
To avoid confusion, I used the word universal moral standard instead of objective morality, which needs to implicitly use soft interpretation of the word "objective".