if you're appealing to a deontological set of rules, where do they come from, and how do you know they're right?
@sharkb8 Why must he answer that? For the sake of this conversation he can say he has this set of rules simply based on faith, or that he made them up. If you then think that his deontological set of rules make no sense or are immoral, then you can go ahead and make that case, but for the sake of this discussion I am not sure why that matters. One of his rules can be 'you should not murder'. If you don't agree with that rule then make that case, if you do then this discussion takes place, regardless of where that rule came from.
@mosheweissman either there is an objective set of rules, or there are not. (Or we don't know the answer, in which case we would default to the second)If there is an objective set of rules, one would have to prove that. After it's proven, if we agree to accept the authority of these rules, deontological ethics would make sense.If there is not an objective set of rules, then whatever deontological set of rules he's appealing to are just his own personal feelings and instincts, which are either ungrounded, or if they are grounded, they're grounded in the idea of societal thriving. And if he's appealing to the fact that we should follow his set of rules because it creates societal thriving, he's actually just using consequentialism already.If someone just says "we have to follow the rules!" the immediate response should be "what rules?"
@sharkb8 BUt you can have 2 people that agree with the objectivity of morals but disagree on where they come from, that can have this discussion. You can also have 2 people that both agree that there is nothing upon which to ground our morals, therefor they are not objective, yet can have this discussion on a specific moral question on which they agree. While the questions you are raising are very important ones, I fail to see how it fits in here?