Phyllo: I simply disagree that morality cannot be separated from the needs and desires of human beings. I think it can be and should be. However, if what you are saying is that what I am talking about here is, in a sense, not really morality, then that is an interesting point and one that has come up before. If that is what you are saying, I would like to reference you as one of the people who has said it as it is something I discuss in the objections section of my thesis. If you are okay with this, how would you like to be referenced?
Only Humean: I do not think it would be consistent to say that every person should be brave if some persons cannot experience fear, as one cannot be brave without fear. This doesn’t mean that it is not the case that people should sometimes do brave things, it merely means that being brave cannot be the underlying moral value that provides the rightness of those actions. Whereas freedom, the ability to understand and make one’s own choices, is common to all persons, as it is the quality which makes them persons. This commonality, I propose, makes it a better candidate for moral value. This does not mean that what is right is what you want to do, this means that the underlying moral value that ought to be protected is the ability of persons to understand and make their own choices, which might require honesty in some circumstances and bravery in others and self-sacrifice in many. Does that clear up my position somewhat?
I think we can safely say that the paralyzed person not being able to rescue the child and you not being at your job because you’re getting drunk at the pub are very different situations. Saying the paralyzed person should rescue the child is meaningless as they cannot. However in the pub scenario, we can say that you ought not to have gone to the pub, that you ought not continue drinking there and you ought to call your job immediately to explain both that you will be unable to attend work on account of being too sloshed, and that they might want to consider getting a new surgeon as there one seems to have a problem with drinking too much rather than going to work (though this part can probably go unsaid as I suspect they will come to that conclusion on their own)
iambiguous: Depends what you mean by applicable. Are you saying that this talk of objective morality does not help convince another person of the rightness of your position? Or are you saying it does not resolve the conflict between two opposing positions regardless of whether that resolution actually convinces the holders of those positions?
surrepticious57: I don’t agree that is the closest we can come to an objective moral system. I don’t think that is even remotely close to an objective moral system. I think the closest we have come so far is the theory explained in the chapters I have linked here.