Objective morality and critical divine command theory

[Anonymous No.19171966]

Objective morality (as opposed to "formal" morality) physically exists. We demonstrate this by two ways, the Continental (through Hegelian dialectic) and the Analytic, through etymology.

By dialectic (abstract, negative, concrete)
ABSTRACT: All morality is relative.
NEGATION: Morality is objective (evolutionary morality, psychology, natural law theory).
CONCRETE: Morality is objectively relative to each particular context and society and therefore, absolute morality is only objective in considering all moral systems together rather than in particular (morality becomes more objective the more particular moralities and ethics are considered together, not just only Aristotle, Bentham or Kant individually but Aristotle AND Bentham AND Kant)

Analytically, by etymology, English 'morality' comes Late Latin mōrālitās (“manner, characteristic, character”), from Latin mōrālis (“relating to manners or morals”), from mōs (“manner, custom”). equivalent to moral + -ity. Therefore, positively, morality relates to custom and manner rather than normatives of good and evil.

So objective morality exists, only in the Universal. Unfortunately, that then leads to other questions, about the nature of the Divine Itself. It then becomes a battle between classical and German theology... Aristotelians, Augustinians and Thomists against Kantians, Hegelians and we-know-who.

[Anonymous No.19171991]

I'll be honest OP I can barely wrap my head around Kant and I think the majority of people here haven't even read him so I think you'll only find quality discussion during the daylight american hours when the academics are on

[Anonymous No.19173286]

>>19171966
> Morality is objectively relative to each particular context and society

how can something be objectively relative? to be objective it must be valued intrinsically. are you saying that these intrinsic morals may be valued more or less depending on context/society? in which case, is said morality not subjective/relative?

[Anonymous No.19174130]

>>19171966
>By dialectic
Yeah, you already failed.