re objective morality was re political atheists livesey solntze wpd sgi com jon livesey writes humans have gone somewhat beyond what exactly in one thread you re telling us that natural morality is what animals do to survive and in this thread you are claiming that an omniscient being can definitely say what is right and what is wrong so what does this omniscient being use for a criterion the long term survival of the human species or what well that s the question isn t it the goals are probably not all that obvious we can set up a few goals like happiness and liberty and the golden rule etc but these goals aren t inherent they have to be defined before an objective system is possible how does omniscient map into definitely being able to assign right and wrong to actions it is not too difficult one you have goals in mind and absolute knoweldge of everyone s intent etc now you are letting an omniscient being give information to me this was not part of the original premise well your original premises have a habit of changing over time so perhaps you d like to review it for us and tell us what the difference is between an omniscient being be able to assign right and wrong to actions and telling us the result is omniscience is fine as long as information is not given away isn t this the resolution of the free will problem an interactive omniscient being changes the situation which type of morality are you talking about in a natural sense it is not at all immoral to harm another species as long as it doesn t adversely affect your own i guess i m talking about the morality introduced by you which was going to be implemented by this omniscient being that can definitely assign right and wrong to actions you tell us what type of morality that is well i was speaking about an objective system in general i didn t mention a specific goal which would be necessary to determine the morality of an action keith
