Discussion on morality

[Juniper]

I differ from you both in that ascribe to an objective moral reality -- there exists an objective right and an objective wrong for at least some situations. We can try to identify what the right and wrong is, and we can be correct or incorrect in our conclusion, but our conclusion does not change rightness or wrongness. Revo, I am well aware that you disagree.

All objective moral realities necessitate a moral authority -- I'm closest to a Modified Divine Command Theory, as per Adams.

[Revo]

I differ from you both in that ascribe to an objective moral reality -- there exists an objective right and an objective wrong for at least some situations. We can try to identify what the right and wrong is, and we can be correct or incorrect in our conclusion, but our conclusion does not change rightness or wrongness. Revo, I am well aware that you disagree.

Actually I don't disagree at all with the part I bolded out. Since our last discussion (and partly as a result of it) I have organized and rearranged my position considerably. I feel somewhat trivial about whether my views would be called objective or subjective... It's the content that counts rather than the label, and my view has a lot more in common with the traditional sense of objective morality. As I mentioned, Harris himself calls his model a model for objective morality. The only reason I'd rather call it subjective is on a technicality. The content is the same.

[Juniper]

Actually I don't disagree at all with the part I bolded out. Since our last discussion (and partly as a result of it) I have organized and rearranged my position considerably. I feel somewhat trivial about whether my views would be called objective or subjective... It's the content that counts rather than the label, and my view has a lot more in common with the traditional sense of objective morality.

Then we can move forward with our discussion