My views on objective morality

[Angrboda]

Where I think we differ is on the critical question of whether there are moral facts about being human, facts that do not depend on the opinion of one individual; but rather, can be discerned independently in the same way other facts are known: reason applied to experience. The validity of moral reasoning depends on such moral facts to justify overruling instinct. The most basic notion of virtue is predicated on the idea that virtues are real attributes related to definable features of human nature. Otherwise value judgments are meaningless.

I'm open to the possibility that there are moral facts, but I do think that if they exist, there is nothing supernatural about them. We are a cooperative species with certain givens that we can't change (preconditions) and things that we can change. For example, it's a well worn chestnut that the strategy of tit for tat will prevail in a group over time compared to other strategies such as always defecting. This is an objective fact and it likely constrains what strategies can be considered good or efficacious and which are considered bad. Thus by the preconditions of humanity, our given status, some things will align with certain shared goals such as pleasure and survival, and other things will not.

This is completely opposed to the idea that we get our morals from a god, though one could hypothesize that the ideal of these naturalistic moral facts is The Good, and is something that we all strive for.