My views on objective morality

[RoadRunner79]

---

Objective means independent of viewpoint or opinion.

Hair colour is objective, as long as we all agree what colours mean what and such. We can have a particular way of measuring its colour which reduces it to its constituents. As long as we all use the same method, we get the same answer.

Of course, recognising by eye what the exact colour is isn't always reliable. That would be an estimate about a fact.

If you can give me a way to determine the morality of an action, that doesn't rely on anyone's opinion about that action, I'd be very interested. Then you have to tell me why I should care about whatever method you've come up with.

We agree on objective ways of assessing reality because it is useful to do so. It's not useful to do the same with morality, as far as I'm concerned.

---

Ok... that helps with understanding the disconnect somewhat. I did mention a couple of times, that I was not speaking about objective in the sense of a reporter or scientist giving an objective account of what occurred (only giving the facts and not their interpretation of them). I would also add, that I'm not talking about being objective (impartial) in a judgment, as well. It appears that you are still talking about objectivity in this sense though.

In this sense, I could agree that morality is subjective. And even from a Christian perspective, while some things are mentioned; I don't believe that scriptures cover everything that is moral or immoral explicitly. Therefore some things may be a judgment call as you put it. I would also agree, that in this sense, the argument from morality doesn't make sense.

What you are speaking of, I would compare somewhat to using an analog measuring device such as a ruler. Different people may get different results, depending on skill, and perspective. Where as the benefit of a digital device, is that everyone will get the same result (even if inaccurate). But there is another sense, in which the words "objective" and "subjective" are used within philosophy. That is that the length being measured is independent of the observer or the measuring device. The result is a property of the object, and is not even reliant on the conveyance of that information (even if inaccurate). For instance, the measurement of a distant star, cannot be directly measured. If our assumptions are incorrect, then are results may be inaccurate to the actual distance. If different assumption are made or a different theory used, then a different conclusion may be reached. Yet another person may hold, that the varying measurements are subjective and that we can objectively state the distance to the star (objectively in the sense that you are using). However in the sense that I am speaking, the distance of the Star isn't changing with each different result. It is not even reliant on our knowing that the star is there.