• David Matthews

    Greetings Jacque.Four questions: considering relativism’s claim that there are no objective truths in morality you state that this is a problem and imply that there are such objective truths. 1) what is the source of these objective truths? and 2) what are they?

    You state that relativism and absolutism are unhelpful because they handicap our ability to reach principled agreement on moral debates. 3) why do we have to reach what you call principled agreement? and 4) why do we have to reach agreement at all?

    • http://synapses.co.za Jacques

      1&2: Part 4 of this series will try to address these questions. But note that you’re straw-manning – I don’t say it’s a problem that there are no objective truths. I say they claim there is no “objective standard or universal truth by which to judge one moral conclusion as being superior to another”. We can have one answer that is better justified than another – as in science – without the need for being certain that it is objectively true.
      3: Because principled agreement has a better chance of being stable in the long-run when compared to ad-hoc, random agreement.
      4: Because I need some persuasive argument to stop you from stealing my stuff, etc.

      • http://synapses.co.za Jacques

        Whoops, I quoted something from the next post in the series, rather than this one.