Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[bennyboy]

We can, objectively, possess moral opinions at least.  However, the possession of such judgement does not make the judgements, themselves, objective.  The question of objective morality is not whether human beings are moral animals...whether this is objectively true, but whether any of our moral opinions correlate to moral facts.  Or if there can be a moral fact of any matter to begin with.

I don't think we need to accept a Platonic idea of wing-ness to establish that wings are objectively real.  There they are.  So for morality-- there it is, whether or not there is "Morality" ingrained somehow in the universe. But fair enough-- it is clear that we are a moral species, so the second question is more interesting.

It seems to me by "moral facts" you mean individual mores-- elemental bits of "rightness" that can be considered universal. In evolutionary terms, I'd look at mores as fitness memes-- and since fitness is determined by the environment, one might say that "moral facts" are those ideas about "right" behavior which would maximally benefit the fitness of our species in the long run.  In other words, there isn't a single set of moral ideas writ in the Universe, but there may be a hypothetical "best path" which could be said to most accurately reflect maximally perfect behavior at all future points in time, regardless of anyone's opinions at each of those points.

After all, isn't that why atheists are at least as moral as Christians? Not given an "absolute" list of rules to follow, we must constantly observe our environment and attempt to act as well as we can. I'd describe that as a search for moral facts, because I think it will get us closer to a maximally perfect behavior than dogma ever will.

---

Okay.  Give an example of an opinion that is subjectively true, but not objectively true, and demonstrate that it is so.  It should be simple-- state any opinion you have.

We have been over this. In fact, we reached agreement on this. "Chocolate ice cream is the best" is only subjectively true.

That statement isn't complete enough to be called "true." You can't apply subjective terms to an object without an agent making the subjective evaluation-- that context-definer is often only implied, but it can never be absent. The complete statement is "Chocolate ice cream is the most delicious TO ME." From the stater's perspective, this can be called a subjective fact, because it is a statement about his experience as a subjective agent. It can ALSO be demonstrated to be an objective truth: you can hook me up to your Brainometer 3000 and see that when I'm given chocolate ice cream, my brain lights up like the 4th of July. Anybody can come to a consensus on this who can understand how the equipment works, and it is no longer a matter of anyone's opinion.

The subject of this thread is whether or not objective morality (that is, the nebulous, generally theistic position that an "absolute" moral code exists, and that certain actions are always, objectively, right or wrong) can be said to exist. It cannot, since there isn't even a coherent definition for "objective morality", because morality is a value system, and value systems are by definition subjective. This is substantial.

I'm not arguing for absolute morality, but I am arguing for objective morality.

It just doesn't leave the door open for... whatever point you want to make, apparently, so you've spent a long time trying to argue that the definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are not the definitions of "subjective" and "objective", roped in a lot of incoherent statements about "agency", and so on. You claim that others' obsession with dictionary definitions is keeping them from making any sort of substantive point about morality and the human condition, or whatever, but haven't actually made any point about it yourself. You've just asserted that some things are objective that aren't objective for reasons that have nothing to do with the definition of "objective", and so on for "subjective" as well. You are effectively railing against the dictionary itself.

See my response to Khemikal.

No one here is against having a discussion about morality and its relation to human society, or what have you. But you keep misusing terms, saying that it proves some sort of point without establishing what that point is, and then blaming others for not contributing to the discussion when they point out your misuse of terms has rendered your entire argument incoherent, even without getting into the fact that it's never been clear what your point was to begin with.

Unless we can define terms and investigate the implications of those definitions more deeply, then there's no point being in a philosophy thread. I can say, "Of course morality is objective-- the capacity to act on ideas about right and wrong is ubiquitous to all humans" and be done. You can say, "Of course morality is subjective-- the ideas about what constitutes right and wrong vary greatly among individuals, cultures, and across the species." Then what?