Morals are just behavioral prescriptions carried out by some entity, a moral carrier. For a behavioral prescription to be valid, it must have a moral carrier. No moral carrier means no behavioral prescription. If we take descriptive statements that are valid at end-time as objectively true, then prescriptive statements that are valid at end-time must also be objectively true. Objective morality exists in the eternal perpetuation of its own moral carriers. A moral that dies is not moral.

It seems to me that there's no such thing as an "is-ought" problem since the "ought" is the "is" or it "isn't" at end-time. Does this objectivity give credence to moral relativism as well, then, since different moral carriers are not just in their own respective environments but they're each carrying their own morals? All of their "oughts" are "are" for the present moment, at least.

I am very attracted to the above line of thinking, since it passes the commonsense test, so is my desire to believe there's morality causing me to miss something?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Conifold, Eliran, christo183, Geoffrey Thomas Nov 14 '18 at 9:08

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • @11684. Action taken. – Geoffrey Thomas Nov 11 '18 at 11:13
  • 1
    It is hard to say what the "line of thinking" is or how it relates to common sense since it is nearly incomprehensible. My guess is that you are confusing values (oughts) with facts about values (is's), "moral carrier has such and such ought" is not itself an ought. What does "prescriptive statements are valid" mean exactly? What is "end-time"? See Epistemology of Moral Realism on SEP. – Conifold Nov 11 '18 at 20:27
  • The question is asking if descriptions can be objective, why can't prescriptions. What do you need me to clarify for you here to help you wrap your head around it? – EternalPropagation Nov 11 '18 at 20:47
  • Repeating yourself will not help. Without an explanation of how prescriptions are supposed to be objective the question is either too broad (see linked article on various versions of what it can mean) or no more meaningful than "if sky can be blue why can't the grass". – Conifold Nov 12 '18 at 0:12
  • 1
    Your terminology is not standard, is it self-invented or is there some reference? If it is self-invented you'll need to expand on what "moral carriers" are, how having them makes something objective, what their exact relation to the prescription is (does it have any motive power over them, for example?), and how losing its status is relevant at all. So far what you are asking is cryptic, and I do not see how it is supposed to bridge the is/ought gap (as I said before, it appears that you do not understand what it is). – Conifold Nov 12 '18 at 1:48