« Computation | Main | Breakthroughes III »

09 November 2008


Mrs. Chaucer's Pirate

I think we need to define what we mean by "morality." For moral progress to exist there must first exist some sort of absolute morality, against which "progress" can be objectively measured. Otherwise you're just saying "I think things have become more moral," but someone else (say a member of the KKK) could claim "I think society has become less moral. We allow adulteresses, gays, blacks, and jews to go un-punished. We are no longer allowed to lynch people."

Without a clear definition of what you mean by "moral," your argument doesn't stand.

Barnaby Dawson

Firstly I don't think that a complete definition of a subject is always required before discussing the subject especially if no one can yet give an attempt at such a defintion.

Secondly the claim that for moral progress to exist there must be an abolute morality is flawed. Logically speaking there could be multiple differing moralities which never the less agree on the existence of moral progress. Indeed there can be infinitely many moralities each of which views moral progress to have occurred.

As an example consider mountaneers climbing a mountain. They may have differing measures of how difficult it is to reach a particular ridge or way point but they may still be able to agree that climbing from A to B would constitute progress. No absolute perspective is necessary.

I am making my argument for morality from my moral perspective. If you doubt/disagree with my moral perspective enough for it to influence my argument then say so. Don't just retreat behind a post modernist fascade.

The comments to this entry are closed.