Avider said:
As you can(not) see, it's very difficult to see how #2 would lead to the same conclusion as #1, or how it's even justifiable.
He gets to that, in a roundabout sort of way, and it makes sense if you can wrap your head around the
drastically long-winded way he does it. But yes, rather difficult.
Point is, there have been and are still attempts at formulating universal objective morality.
Quite so. Kant's far from the only thinker to propose <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>the existence of a universal morality</a>, but - dryness and long-winded sophistry aside - he is one of the most influential ones, so good on you for pointing him out.
I just wanted an excuse to post those links, though, since they're related to the topic and all.
