A fine discussion. I will only add some comments about this:
Quote:
|
To the theist, moral objectivity usually means that certain actions are right or wrong independent of human opinion. Not just that certain things are wrong today but ok 50 yrs ago or what have you, but they are wrong now, and always were wrong, and ever shall be wrong. They are wrong even if we do not have the knowledge that they are wrong.
|
This places too high a burden on objectivity. If I apply this notion of objectivity outside the moral sphere, I find that nearly nothing is objective.
I understand that yours is the normal view when discussing moral absolutes. My point is that this is very simply an error about what "objective" means. You are talking about permanence, not objectivity.