Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism

Post by Philosophy Now »

After our recent ‘Death of Morality’ issue, Mitchell Silver replies to the amoralists.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Our ... bjectivism
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism

Post by Dave Mangnall »

Mitchell Silver appears to be confused. Even if it were the case that despite being an avowed moral subjectivist my behaviour were such that I could be deemed a moral objectivist, that would not serve to make moral objectivism valid. That would just make me inconsistent.

Actually, our author is merely projecting his subjective truth onto reality. When he says things like "If you accept permissibility rules then you are a moral objectivist", this is best interpreted as "I am a person who uses the term "moral objectivist" to describe someone who accepts permissibility rules." His justification for using the term in that way is conspicuously absent.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism

Post by A_Seagull »

Moral objectivism requires...... a combination of myopia, tunnel vision and navel gazing.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism

Post by surreptitious57 »


The term moral objectivism is an oxymoron because morality by definition is not something that ever be objective
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism

Post by Necromancer »

You sit on the plane and travel somewhere and call that "traffic" yet the "traffic" of people is something you deny! Weird! Implausible! Navel gazing? :)
Post Reply