The Moral Argument for God

[robvalue]

I haven't read through all this, but I'll throw in my thoughts:

I define morality as a value judgement, usually regarding an action or attitude. It requires some sort of intelligence to make that judgement. The criteria for the value judgement are essentially arbitrary, and as such totally subjective. We do happen to mostly agree, very generally, on some aspects of how this value should be calculated. But even regarding those areas, there is no consensus on the details.

We can objectively measure physical outcomes, but it's in how those outcomes are assessed that morality comes in.

Individuals have their own morality, and each society has moral norms which represent the most popular views. These are all entirely dynamic.

I've never heard anyone define objective morality in such a way that it means anything useful. If the value formula is fixed, then someone, or some group, has to decide how to fix it, and then "objective morality" just becomes that person(s) subjective morality. If it "just is" a certain way, then it's arbitrary and therefor useless.

No one who seems to think objective morality is a thing has been able to give me a single non-trivial example of a real life situation showing this in action. By non-trivial, I mean there is at least some conflict going on between potential outcomes. If "objective morality" can't handle anything more complicated than shooting people in the head is worse than not shooting people in the head, then it's no more than common sense. And that still doesn't account for why anyone should care that someone is being shot in the head anyway, until some way of measuring morality has been agreed. And it's in agreeing that way of measuring it that no consensus can ever be reached, even if the basics can be roughly thrashed out.