I would have to assume this would be in regard to opinions, not facts?

Hopefully you also realize that most everyone else feels that way as well. Including those who's opinions you feel are foolish.

Used to be, thinking about humans flying was considered foolish...

"This leads to a situation where the baser desires can argue against an otherwise moral, but less gratifying position.
Our various impulses both bad and good are the motivators, but in the mind of a hyper-intelligent person, those impulses are granted access to the ability to reason away dogmas, even those that are considered 'moral' Thus the darker demons of our personalities have access to the terrible weapons of logic to assail the moral boundries we set for ourselves."

This makes it sound like a bad thing.

Ha! 'Bad thing.' Since it's discussing morals, i suppose that's the whole point. Very good.

Ha. 'Good.'

Seriously, the original philosopher here is making a mistake in assuming that there is some inherent value or truth to the moral dogmas people rationalize away. All such value is only in the mind of the person following it. If you decide that moral has no value to you, then it has no value to you. Morals are nothing more than personal preferences.

I'm not speaking of my opinion of anyone's opinions. I am talking about the notion that there is an objective correct, more correct, incorrect, and outright foolish given all the facts pertaining to anything, wether those facts are knowable to the the observer or not. Opinions that anyone holds, including my own, are subject to the bare truth of objectivity.

And that was a poorly held opinion, wasn't it?

Unless there are some unknowable yet objective facts surrounding even that.

I am talking about the notion that there is an objective correct, more correct, incorrect, and outright foolish given all the facts pertaining to anything, wether those facts are knowable to the the observer or not. Opinions that anyone holds, including my own, are subject to the bare truth of objectivity.

Not prior to the 16th century.

As long as there are multiple observers holding different opinions, yes. However, even if there is only one observer, objective facts, knowable or otherwise, may make him incorrect.

There can be no "objective facts" around the concept of morality any more than there can be "objective facts" around the concept of one's favorite color.




As it pertains to "Truth," assuming there is such a thing (which I would agree with, though this is just my opinion based on my imperfect observations of the world around me), yes. When you're talking about what is and what isn't, ultimately, I believe that there is fact, and there is the mistaken beliefs everyone else has held in contrast to that fact. However, when discussing morality, "right and wrong," there is no such "truth." Even in the event of an ominiscient, omnipotent deity dictating Morality, morality is still just an opinion...just one with some important backing. If there's an omnipotent God, maybe he's the tyrant and the devil is just the misunderstood, valiant freedom fighter. It's all dependant on personal point of view.

Fair enough. Unfortunately the number of objective facts out there is very very small.

If there is/was an omnipotent being who created the world, and thus all laws governing it, there would be an objective truth, and an objective morality, if that being so deemed it, as it would strip from your argument the idea that morality was a human construct.

If it is fact that morality is a human construct, you are correct. If it is fact that morality is not a human construct, you are incorrect.

If morality is not a human construct then what makes people think we can understand or know it?

Morality is a construct, one way or the other. In fact, it's many constructs. There is no question that morality is a human construct. We've all got different morality, we've invented those ourselves. If there is a separate moral construct originating from some theoretical divine being, the only thing that gives it any weight over the moral constructs we all have made for ourselves is the ability to enforce it more thoroughly. That doesn't make it objective. The preferences of an omnipotent omniscient being are still subjective. That being just has the power to decree them.

Let me clarify what I mean.

Objective facts are those in which there is no room for interpretation. Based on the ways that humans observe and interact with the world, by definition most "objective facts" are in actuality opinion, supported by data, filtered by a persons background and experiences. That is to say, tainted by bias.