First off ladies and the lesser sex, this isn't intended to be a robust philosophy paper. Just sort of me explaining why I think it's reasonable to reject morality as being an objective truth.
So, first, I'm going to be using the term morality to mean something like "prescriptions concerning human behavior" or, "what humans should do"
Now, the basic reason I object to any sort of prescription being objective, is that I don't even understand waht it would mean to say that a normative would be true or false in the absense of any conditional proposition. For example, we may say that it is true that we shouldn't kill innocent children for fun if we want to bring about a state-of-affairs where meaningless suffering occurs. We are at least able to put this proposition in a posoition to be judged as true or false. But, I don't think this is what we really mean when we claim morality is objective. Most moral objectivist's would claim that "You should't kill innocent children" is an intrinsic truth in and of itself. This claim to me, seems to be incoherent.
Even if we claim that it is good not to kill innocent children for fun, a statement in which I agree with, it still doesn't follow that we should be good. And as Hume told us, we simply can't derive and ought from an is.
Probably not what you expected from an Orthodox Christian's first blog is it?
Christ is Risen.
