Objective morality: how would it affect your judgement/actions?

[robvalue]

Thanks for the answers

If we accept that morality is linked to how harmful something is, then what exactly counts as harm, and how that harm may trade off against any benefits being achieved at the same time, is up for grabs. Some sort of "moral fact" could essentially be telling you that the way you are deciding what is and isn't harmful, and how much that matters, is wrong. But what does that even mean?

So for example, if we were somehow magically given factual information that "putting someone in solitary confinement is not wrong", then that would mean all the things we thought were harmful about it are somehow not as important as we thought; or else, there are some sort of countering benefits that cancel it out that we're unaware of.

My point is that no one would act on this "fact". We'd retain our way of doing things. We would surely do more study, to try and understand why this "fact" is the way it is. We'd try and uncover potential hidden benefits, or consider the way we look at "harm". Not until we understand why the fact said what it says would we act on it. Yet it must be "correct", by definition. This is the contradiction I'm presenting.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no single correct way of determining "harm" or "benefits", so the idea that there can be facts about them doesn't make sense.