Because the principles are universal, grounded in concrete reality. Each actor has to assess the circumstances and choose according to the limits of his knowledge and cognitive ability.
I don’t think that’s relevant Mr. Larose. I mean, moral objectivists have no objection (objectivist objections, ha… ha.) that a thief may have a different perception of what constitutes theft, and it still doesn’t nullify their natural or universal moral code…
A blind man would be no less guilty of pulling the trigger and killing someone, or a sleep-walking man, uh… shooting people… I can only think of lame examples at the moment [:S]
Forgive me if I’m wrong Mr. Summers [:)]
Edit: Aw what the hell, I type so slow that you’ve answered yourself while I was typing.
How do you determine this objective morality?
Well, that’s the question, isn’t it?
An answer to this would require a full elucidation of a theory of objective ethics, so it’ll have to be deferred for now.
Could you do an easy one first? Like “murder is wrong”?