My views on objective morality

[robvalue]

I hold that morality is a value judgement, and not a measurement. Value judgements are subjective.

They only become objective if we arbitrarily select one thinking agent to do all the judging, and call their subjective morality objective.

The idea that morality is somehow inherent is, to me, absolutely nonsensical. I've never heard anyone define objective morality in a way that is coherent and useful. The biggest problem is definition. Some people define morality to mean something entirely different to what I consider it should be about. Morality is about achieving certain goals, and those goals help decide what actions are "good" and "bad". If we don't agree on the goals, or someone refuses to state what the goals are, no useful discussion can continue. The problem is with entirely circular definitions; "good" is things that are "good". It doesn't mean anything. "We all know what good means" is similarly useless, when clearly we don't agree. You can't say something is objective without properly pinning down what it actually means, and without the use of vague, subjective terms.

"Unchanging" doesn't automatically mean desirable, or useful. Neither does "external" or "independent".

I did a couple of video replies recently on this subject, so I'll put them here. They cover a lot of these issues and I've not received a rebuttal from either party.

http://youtu.be/jJ46w6J10GI

http://youtu.be/bjcjWr23EW0

http://youtu.be/-41jGxs1nCE