It's been rumored that on Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Alejandro Dubrovsky wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Randall Randall wrote:
>> Objectivity does not imply universal agreement. Evolution is no less an
>> objective fact because there are sizable populations who violently
>> disagree that it is true. While I do not consider myself an objectivist,
>> I do not believe that objectivity can be established by vote.
>But evolution exists independent of what humans think (barring any silent
>tree-felling kind of arguments), while morality is solely a creation of
>this activity (unless a god exists, but i don't think that is what Terry
>Donaghe was suggesting), therefore suggesting an objective morality is
>suggesting that this human creation has some features which are
>independent of the specific human and common to all.
Yes. However, I would disagree that morality *must* be "solely" a creation of thinking. For instance (to use the evolution example), evolution can't happen without something to evolve, but would this imply that the principles that directed evolution did not exist until evolution actually occurred? Similarly, a correct morality could conceivably be built into the universe in the same way that complex processes are, given the right circumstances in each (living things for evolution; thought for morality).
Let me hasten to add that I am not *sure* that an objective morality exists, but I do think that trying to discover such a thing is a proper activity, unless and until it becomes apparent that no such beastie exists.
-- Wolfkin. firstname.lastname@example.org | Libertarian webhost? www.freedomspace.net On a visible but distant shore, a new image of man; The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.-- Johnny Clegg.