General question about the possibility of objective moral truth

[TheRocketSurgeon]

In my understanding, to say that morality is subjective is the same as saying that there is no real Right and Wrong. Because "real" means that it is really existing. But when I think that morality is just a subjective feeling that human beings have - then we have to state that our feeling of the truth of morality, of moral rules is just a useful ilusion which our brain generates for us. (Because the long term survival chances of a society are higher if there are moral rules.)

I'm not saying morality is subjective like it's an opinion. I'm saying LOOK, what you're calling "morality" is different everywhere we look. Sometimes in small details, sometimes in pretty major ways. That means it clearly, unmistakably is subjective and based on the society, and any agreement between societies then is likely attributable to the factors I described.

You are the one who is proposing this idea of transcendent morality, of some eternal code, presumably one given by The Great Invisible Lawmaker in the Sky™.



I love how the people who want us to accept their astounding (and astoundingly ignorant, in my opinion) idea of transcendent morality never fail to come at us with the accusation that it is subjectivity that needs defending and/or explaining!