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

[robvalue]

Hi guys

I'll come back to check out your replies properly when my head's in the right space (this stuff makes me go a bit funny sometimes!) but I wanted to add a few more thoughts in the meantime.

I notice a kind of tautological use of "morality", as this simulated conversation between a pretend objective morality person is supposed to indicate. I'm not saying this is anyone in particular, it's just a simplified strawman to indicate my thoughts. Feel free to comment on where the conversation could differ.

Action A is objectively immoral.

Why?

It causes a form of unnecessary harm H.

What makes that objectively immoral?

Because causing unnecessary harm is objectively immoral.

So... the usage of the word "immoral" here is entirely redundant. It just means "unnecessary harm". All I'm actually being told is that action A causes consequences H. Whether or not that means someone should or shouldn't care about this when deciding on their actions has yet to be established. It's only relevant to someone who cares about this, and so it's not objective morality, in that sense.

But I appreciate that if you simply assume that immoral means the cause of unnecessary harm, then by defining harm as well, you can make objective statements. However, I find this all rather sneaky, as it doesn't address morality as a code of conduct at all; that part has already been assumed before we even start.

I'm probably missing the point and/or objecting to the wrong kind of usage of "objective". One final objection is that it doesn't seem to take into account the method used, either. How do we determine if the ends justify the means? And more importantly, how do we balance harm against benefit, when we're in a real situation where it's not just a simple matter of "do horrible thing or don't do it"?

Congrats to anyone who read through to the end of this philosophobabble. Thanks very much!