My views on objective morality

[LadyForCamus]

In my defence, what I actually said was, "[This is] rape apologetics". It was in regard to specific things CL had put forward as her beliefs. Those beliefs were making excuses for rapes occurring. So in this way, it was accurate. I didn't actually call her a "rape apologist", as in someone who regularly defends rape. She was partaking in excusing the act, while simultaneously making it clear she was completely against the act. Hence the contradiction.

In retrospect I wish I hadn't used the term, as I realize it sounds more accusatory than it needed to be.

Anyhow back on topic, anyone have a comment about my post?

Getting back on topic:

I'll tell you the really pointless thing about objective morality claims: they don't achieve anything.

I am proud to own my subjective morality as my opinion, and I back up those opinions with arguments. This means that I am sometimes able to win others round to my point of view, and to what I think is right.

However, if I went to try and change someone's mind and I instead claim my morality is objectively superior to theirs, for whatever reason, then that's not going to achieve anything. If people and societies with very different values are ever going to reach some sort of compromise, it won't be by either (or both) sides claiming to simply "be right". It will be by reasoned arguments about what the goals of morality are, what they should be, and how we can go about achieving them.

Standing in pious judgement does nothing but puff up your own ego.

Yes, Rob. You're right; I'm sorry. That was an example of me participating with my "post first, think later" function on!

And yes, I agree. Objective morality, real or not, seems utterly pointless.