6/8/2010.

Moral truths are objective, just as all truths are.

I can't derive a complete objective theory of moral truth sufficient to prove that it is wrong to murder just to answer your question. That would be akin to showing someone who doesn't understand what a number is how to solve a calculus problem.

But I think I can do a good enough job to show you how morality can be more than just 1 person's opinion, which is what you're really asking.

Morality is about what is "good" and what is "bad." Perhaps your contention is that what is good and bad is just opinion. 1 person may consider something good and 1 person might consider something bad. And your issue is that there is no way to validate 1 claim over the other.

While that may be true in a free-floating sense, all you need is a target for the claim to be objective. For example, "water is good for a plant, but too much water is bad for a plant." That's not just my opinion, that's an objectively-demonstrable fact. And that's the best you can ever do. Even murder is not particularly good or bad for a three-toed sloth on the dark side of the moon, if there is one.

Humans have free will. That is, they can make choices to do 1 thing or another. Because humans are in fact moral agents, they are in fact responsible for the choices they make. Because people create value, they are objectively entitled to ownership.

The problem with religion, however, is it takes morality outside the realm of rational analysis. So if the priest says the holy book says you should stone adulterers, there is no way to demonstrate that adulterers objectively have the right not to be stoned.

If your faith tells you that God will forgive even murder, what are your grounds for a moral life?

6/29/2010.