B Sandford writes:
> Martin wrote:
> > From the Collins English dictionary:
> >
> > objective: 1. existing independently of perception or of an
> > individual's conceptions. 2. undistorted by emotion or personal
> > bias. 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to
> > thoughts, feelings, etc.
>
> Like everyone else, I'm having trouble seeing how 'morality' fits with even
> these definitions of 'objective', never mind the meaning that is usual in
> philosophical discussion. 'Objective morality', hmmm.... stick 'morality' in
> front of each of the definitions you have so kindly supplied....

I don't mean to give the impression that this stuff is any easier for
me, and I certainly don't mean to give the impression that I think I
am a paragon of virtue.  It isn't, and I don't.  But I think that if
you can't put morality in front of these definitions and see meaning,
then that is one place where our philosophies differ in a fundamental
way, and it is probably the source of fuel for this argument.  I think
that when a person who believes (a) that he is a human being because
he is a homo sapien and (b) that morality is purely subjective, first
puts morality in front of these definitions and reads them, he feels
very uncomfortable.

martin