LogFAQs > #973807712

Karovorak posted...

That's the whole point, there is no value you can use at all.

The Putin example should already make that clear.

If you follow one ethical philosophy it's 100% bad, if you follow the other it's 100% good. There is no room of discussion within the mindsets, and that's already ignoring any other variable in such a situation.

Since we are on a gaming board, another example:
It's like saying Zelda- Tears of the Kingdom is objectivly a better game than Zelda - A Link to the past. Why? Because games with good graphics are better than games with bad graphics, and games with a lot of content are better than games with less content.

If you only look at this it's easy and objectivly measurable, but this is only a fraction of what makes a game good.

Well killing Putin isn't 100% good with a Teleologist world view because you haven't considered if there are better ways to achieve the good result (ending the Ukraine war) nor is it guaranteed that killing Putin results in that good result. But the point remains that the two systems can arrive at dramatically different conclusions. As how two different statistical analysis techniques can arrive at different answers. There are situations where an alternative hypothesis of > and get polar opposite results. There is 100% subjectivity in not just the decision but deciding what system to use to make the decision, but that subjectivity doesn't mean that there isn't an objective truth. The parameter still has a real value even if we don't know it. Whether or not morality is objective comes down to is there a correct answer. Not how well can we measure it, not how well we can identify it, just is there one? I think there is and as a society we are very slowly getting closer to discovering it.