Can somebody give me a good argument in favor of objective morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing is that simple, Khem.

Things don't have to be simple to be objective.  They can be damned complicated. If you think about it, the more needlingly accurate you want your objective statement to be the more complicated it becomes. Try explaining a ball from the general down to the molecular.

The definition of an objective morality, however..is simple..and intentionally so, like the base foundation of any other position.

Nope. Murder wouldn't fit the criteria. It's not always bad or always good or always in the gray area. It's . . . subjective.

I think that a moral realist would suggest that you're discussing -killing- being "grey", somehow.  Murder is pretty much exclusively conceptualized as "the bad killing".  

Actually, it has to be good or bad for everyone for it to be completely objective.

That's absolutism, not objectivity.  They are completely different positions.  

Think about the root of the word subjective. The rapist is someone involved, and he's morally okay with it. It's "good" for him. Take that even further and let's suppose someone got pregnant from a rape and grew to love the ever-living shit out of that baby. She wouldn't change what happened for anything. Then, is it objectively bad or only subjectively bad?

The statement that rape is objectively bad is not a comment on the rapists pleasure or the victims motherly disposition.   It's a comment on the rape.  

Yes, atomic waste would be the thing I would find actually fit the objective morality thing, and that's only if it was to affect living organisms in any way.

If it would be objectively bad because it hurt living organisms in some way..wouldn't murder or rape be objectively bad because they hurt living organisms in some way?  

Anyhoo, I said I wasn't going to get into this same debate on this forum again because it comes up every week, so I'm off. Think what you think, man. I don't even really think it matters if there are objective morals.

It may not.  The practical difference between a person accepting a subjective rather than objective moral normative is likely to be nil.  Regardless of whether I think that rape is wrong because it hurts people or I think that rape is wrong because bob said so..I think it's wrong.

---

Are we to confine morality specifically to effect of behaviors on humans?  What about mosquito rights?  Cuz I been slappin' them big time.

There's no reason to, and we don't.  We already posit that our interactions with other species have a moral component as well. That's behind every declaration of the validity of the subject of animal welfare and cruelty.