Hi, Mod.
I'm not sure where I fit into your classification scheme. Here is the way I see it:
The problem for those advocating the idea of an absolute standard of morality is that they never really define what the term "morality" means in a way that allows the concept of "absolute standard" to make sense.
Morality is, ultimately, the determination that some actions are "right" and others are "wrong". But "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms, depending on the feelings of the one making the judgement. Even allowing that some Demi-urge might have an opinion about what is right or wrong doesn't change the subjective nature of the concept -- it merely means that one being, no more or less a moral actor than anyone else, has more power to enforce her opinions on others. Perhaps one can define "right" and "wrong" without reference to the opinions of any particular being, but I haven't seen it yet.
Now, one could consider "right" and "wrong" to be
primitive concepts, to borrow a phrase from axiomatic mathematics, that is, words that cannot be defined themselves because they are introduced at the beginning of the axiomatic framework and so there are no other terms yet by which to define them. Like the axioms in an axiomatic theory, they are simply accepted because they make sense, and, in this case, it is assumed that people understand to what the terms refer.
Unfortunately,
I don't understand what the terms refer to. Whenever I try to understand what an absolute standard for morality can mean, my thoughts get turned around. It appears to me that the phrase itself is without meaning. At least I have never been able to formulate a meaning (or even an undefinable concept), nor has anyone else's attempt ever made much sense to me. That could just be my problem, except then any argument based on concepts that I don't understand will be unpersuasive, and so the person making the argument will be wasting her time (and, presumably, that is a problem for her if she wants to convince me of something).
The best that I have ever seen as definition is some sort of "Karmic Law" kind of thing. That is, there are some sort of natural laws in the universe, and a person's actions will have effects on herself and/or others. But this seems to be very different from the concept of morality that I believe that most of us hold: it is all very good to avoid certain actions and persue others because of the effects of those actions. But if one is avoiding unpleasant effects and seeking pleasant ones, then one is acting in one's own self-interest, which is not what most of us think of when we think of morality. If one simply must prefer some actions over others, then one has just begged the question, since now we have to ask why we should prefer some outcomes over other.
The law of gravity is another principle whereby actions can produce effects in the world. However, no one reasonably tries to make judgements base on this: no one, for example, says that one has a moral obligation to not fly in airplanes, nor does anyone feel that it is immoral for people to deliberately flaunt the law of gravity by engaging in "Xtreme" recreational activities, even though there is the possibility of unpleasant consequences in those cases as well.
The only way that I can think of to sensibly define morality is through the subjective feelings of the observers. Then, "absolute standard for morality" becomes like "four-sided triangle" -- it becomes a nonsensical phrase simply because of the definition itself.
Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?
A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. --
jhuger
™ Version 4.2
