so I got my philosophy paper back...

[ghosts_on_tv42]

and the comment I saw the most was that I needed to defend my claim that moral standards can only exist in the mind.  The implication of this was that any objective standard must have a conscious entity to conceive it (I took this to be something like the Judeo-Christian God, but more on that later).

Anyway... the professor's counterexample was the

Comments

[notthegoatseguy]

"Moral standards can only exist in the mind."

Isn't this just a longer wording of moral relativism? And the example your professor cites (mind you, I've never, EVER taken a philosophy class) sounds like moral universalism.

I think moral relativism is a load of crap. However, it's a really well known theory and you should have no problem being able to defend it.

Also, if you're able to make a good argument for your case, I think it will help your grade on your paper. This doesn't apply to just philosophy or other liberal arts classes. I've gone to professors before and argued my point, and more often than not, I get a few points just for putting forth the effort.

[ghosts_on_tv42]

Actually, I'm not arguing for moral relativism at all. I'm just making a point about what else needs to be in place for objective morals to exist - a rational agent whose discernment of right and wrong is authoritative. The point I'm ultimately trying to get to is that the existence of God is necessary in order for objective morality to be true.

[ext_128853]

Been a while since we've chatted loftily.

I feel as though moral relativism has acquired a cynical connotation that I don't see in the worldview. I see a false dilemma that assumes any variety of morality exists. The question of moral law can be dismissed (in such a fashion) as easily as the question of God can be dismissed--not in an atheistic way, but in a non-theistic way. I don't believe morality is a very useful way of judging actions in the world, and as such I don't believe in justice (or really injustice) or other such absolute designations. Instead I believe in pragmatism, comprehension, sustainability, pleasure, pain, intuition, and empathy.

But I digress. In terms of proofs:

You can argue against the premise, as I begin to do above.

Inductively, and then by contradiction, you could theoretically compile a list of every moral precept that has been declared as some time of natural law, eternal form, or any other objective truth by a significant number of sane and honest people. You can then find an example of a

[notthegoatseguy]

QUESTION: If a person states a claim that he or she believes to be true, and that claim later turns out to be false, was that person honest? Is honesty itself a reasonable label to place on such a statement?

I should know the answer to this, because it's like question #1 in my Logic 201 course.