Reply #50: We may be misunderstanding one another.

[varkam]

In which case, we would have wasted a lot of hot air (or, hot typing I suppose). I agree with your point that when we have a subjective assessment about the rightness or wrongness of an action, that that is just our appeal to our own sense of morality. But often times, criminals (i.e. my in-laws) will rationalize their actions to the point where they can view themselves in a positive light. But the fact that they view their action as a good or right action does not make it so. That is the point that I am trying to get across, and if that is the case (that perception of the moral rightness of an action often has nothing to do with the actual moral rightness of an action), then there *has* to be an objective morality.

If you agree with that (at least the first part, maybe not the *having* to be an objective morality part), then I would suspect you and I are actually in more agreement than we thought.

And what's more, the statement that something might exist is not a statement of faith. In my view it's the most logically probable - as you're not ruling something out, nor are you ruling it in. And, at least according to my own thoughts, agnosticism refers to a condition of knowledge. Being that there is a distinction between knowledge and belief (with the former entailing a truth of the claim), then I have no problem describing myself as an agnostic atheist - I don't *know* whether or not there is a God, but I sure as hell don't believe in one.

I'm sort of in the same boat with objective morality. I don't know whether or not there is such a thing, but I believe there is one based on the evidence I've presented (i.e. relativist normative theories being insufficient).

And again, I was foolish to use the term "absolutism" - as it has several negative connotations. I don't mean to say the type of morality that lends itself to "Homosexuality is immoral because God said so and all homosexuals are evil". What I mean to say is that people's perceptions of their own actions does not make an action right (or wrong, for those of us who beat ourselves up all the time).

Who knows. In the end perhaps you are right and all we will ever have as framework for moral claims is our subjective interpretation. But perhaps as normative ethical theory advances we might come upon something which would allow us to logically satisfy the conditions and the questions you've raised. But, being that I'm no philosopher (and hell, not even that smart), I'm certainly not going to be able to do it.