(March 3, 2017 at 12:17 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: True, I did not give a mechanism, merely described the compulsion we all seem to feel as a mechanism.

A mechanism for... what, exactly?

No one can even coherently define what "objective morality" would mean, let alone provide evidence that it exists. This entire thread stands as testament to that.

Morality is a value system. All value judgments are inherently subjective. "Objective morality" is a nonsense phrase.

(March 3, 2017 at 1:17 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 3, 2017 at 12:17 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: True, I did not give a mechanism, merely described the compulsion we all seem to feel as a mechanism.

A mechanism for... what, exactly?

No one can even coherently define what "objective morality" would mean, let alone provide evidence that it exists. This entire thread stands as testament to that.

Morality is a value system. All value judgments are inherently subjective. "Objective morality" is a nonsense phrase.

Would you agree that everyone universally, regardless of culture, geography, etc; feels that it would be wrong to commit blank (insert the most heinous act propagated against children or humanity you can think of)?

If the answer is yes, my question is what is the source for that compulsion.

(March 3, 2017 at 3:40 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote:

(March 3, 2017 at 1:17 pm)Nonpareil Wrote: A mechanism for... what, exactly?

No one can even coherently define what "objective morality" would mean, let alone provide evidence that it exists. This entire thread stands as testament to that.

Morality is a value system. All value judgments are inherently subjective. "Objective morality" is a nonsense phrase.

Would you agree that everyone universally, regardless of culture, geography, etc; feels that it would be wrong to commit blank (insert the most heinous act propagated against children or humanity you can think of)?

If the answer is yes, my question is what is the source for that compulsion.

Would the reason that somethings are taboo (just don't feel right) in the experience of other animals be the same as it is for us?  Is there a creator baboon who determines that the entire baboon clan shall shun certain behaviors?

I cannot speak for the baboon clan; but my ex mother in law may. I shall put the question to her.

(March 3, 2017 at 3:40 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Would you agree that everyone universally, regardless of culture, geography, etc; feels that it would be wrong to commit blank (insert the most heinous act propagated against children or humanity you can think of)?

No. And it is irrelevant regardless. What you refer to is consensus morality, not objective morality.

The latter remains an incoherent, undefined term.

(March 3, 2017 at 5:41 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 3, 2017 at 3:40 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Would you agree that everyone universally, regardless of culture, geography, etc; feels that it would be wrong to commit blank (insert the most heinous act propagated against children or humanity you can think of)?

No. And it is irrelevant regardless. What you refer to is consensus morality, not objective morality.

The latter remains an incoherent, undefined term.

Agreed there are arguments for objective morality but appealing to human universal feelings won't do it . As for the assertion of said universal it's never existed I fear human barbarity (often propagated by religion of justified under it because when god commands it can't be wrong ) seems boundless (as well as the contrary)

(March 3, 2017 at 5:41 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 3, 2017 at 3:40 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Would you agree that everyone universally, regardless of culture, geography, etc; feels that it would be wrong to commit blank (insert the most heinous act propagated against children or humanity you can think of)?

No. And it is irrelevant regardless. What you refer to is consensus morality, not objective morality.

The latter remains an incoherent, undefined term.

Just to be clear, are do you reject all forms of objectivity or just moral objectivity in particular?

I see morality as not objectively true but dependent upon societal organization and social construction. To assume objective moral truths is likely to presume that these moral truths are eternal, unless they are contingent, but in that case they would be dependent upon something else. Moral laws would apply to interactions of people, so it presumes personal interactions by definition. This means that personal interactions exist as a necessity. A possible way out of this is to just assume the nature of reality is able to be codified into a context that is able to be comprehended into human society. Either way, this goes back into reality being in one with people. 
In the end, it slowly becomes more clear that morality is dependent upon society itself.

(March 3, 2017 at 7:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Just to be clear, are do you reject all forms of objectivity or just moral objectivity in particular?

Moral. This is because morality is a value system, and all value systems are, by definition, subjective to some viewpoint. The idea of an objective moral system is contradictory; a system cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time. This is the cause of the digression earlier in the thread about whether or not morality defined by a god would be objective or not, because objective morality has to both be subject to God's viewpoint, in order to be a moral system, and not subject to any viewpoint at all, in order to be objective.

This is why I use the phrase "incoherent". It refers to the fact that moral objectivity is both poorly defined and nonsensical.

(March 3, 2017 at 9:08 pm)Nonpareil Wrote: The idea of an objective moral system is contradictory; a system cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time.

Sure it can. A single event can include both first-person experience and third-person processes. No matter. I don't think you truly know what objective means anyway.