Re: ESSAY: 'Debunking Hippy-Dippy moral philosophy'

From: Randall Randall (
Date: Tue Jun 15 2004 - 12:48:26 MDT

On Jun 15, 2004, at 1:53 PM, fudley wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 "Randall Randall" <>
> said:
>>> If morality is truly objective then any correlation between the
>>> wishes
>>> of a person and the readings on the meter are purely coincidental,
>>> you
>>> might as well flip a coin as look at the meter.
>> In the same way as the objectivity of length
>> means that any correlation between a person's
>> estimate of a distance and the readings on an
>> odometer are purely coincidental?
> If I estimate that the edge of a cliff is 100 feet away and I walk 60
> feet toward it there will be consequences if the edge is really only 50
> feet away; but if the meter says putting on a green hat on Thursday is
> horribly evil and I do it anyway there are no consequences to me or
> anybody else.

Is it really the case that you believe "objective" means
"random", or "without evidence"?

I don't know whether there is an objective morality in a
provable sense, but I'm not sure why you (seem to) believe
that the fact that various humans differ about morality
indicates that there is no possibility of progress in
the area.

Randall Randall <>
Property law should use #'EQ , not #'EQUAL .

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT