My views on objective morality

[Ryantology]

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 suppose the question that follows is, does a moral statement have to possess objective value in order to have any value at all? Is it all or nothing? If this is true, why does this standard not apply to the evidence proffered by believers that is based upon subjective experiences?

Anyone that calls some things right and others wrong or talks about justice tacitly accepts the existence of moral facts. I object to those who knowingly deny the existence of moral facts but nevertheless treat human interactions in anything other than power dynamics. Interestingly, I do not recall you ever expressing a moral judgment although many others who deny moral facts do.

This might be true. To suggest that morals are a concept people agree upon because it appears to be in the best interests of the group can be reduced to power dynamics. But, then again, the concept that morals are an immutable concept governed by the creator of the universe is no less a power dynamic, because such morals are enforced by a being with infinite power (and often, a propensity to dole out punishment), and justified by that creator's superior wisdom.