I find morality hard to pin down epistemologically.
I wouldn't call moral actions that are seen as absolute as "facts", maybe precepts, but calling moral actions as facts seems like it's stretching it, IMO.
Sure, moral actions are better or worse than others, that are of a comparable degree, but that is a distinction made in what perceived harm an action makes. I can understand why someone who think morality is objective would think them to be objective. We understand full well, from our own experience of harm done to ourselves, that harming others is wrong - but what is "harm" anyways? I think it's an entirely subjective metric; someone's harm is someone else's pleasure - or so it would seem - i.e. moral actions are conditional.
I still think we can make moral judgements, but that they are done with a caveat of societies ethics and sociability zeitgeist: What is considered moral today might change in a century on the zeitgeist for that century.
I think our moral precepts are evolving (hopefully towards the better), in reducing harm and making society a better place overall to live in.
---
BTW, as an excerpt, what is an example of "objective morality"? "Slavery is wrong" or "murder is wrong"? Not that I don't agree with these statements, I just think it would be difficult to argue for these statements as objective, they might seem objective, but I think they are moral precepts.
I wouldn't call moral actions that are seen as absolute as "facts", maybe precepts, but calling moral actions as facts seems like it's stretching it, IMO.
Sure, moral actions are better or worse than others, that are of a comparable degree, but that is a distinction made in what perceived harm an action makes. I can understand why someone who think morality is objective would think them to be objective. We understand full well, from our own experience of harm done to ourselves, that harming others is wrong - but what is "harm" anyways? I think it's an entirely subjective metric; someone's harm is someone else's pleasure - or so it would seem - i.e. moral actions are conditional.
I still think we can make moral judgements, but that they are done with a caveat of societies ethics and sociability zeitgeist: What is considered moral today might change in a century on the zeitgeist for that century.
I think our moral precepts are evolving (hopefully towards the better), in reducing harm and making society a better place overall to live in.
---
BTW, as an excerpt, what is an example of "objective morality"? "Slavery is wrong" or "murder is wrong"? Not that I don't agree with these statements, I just think it would be difficult to argue for these statements as objective, they might seem objective, but I think they are moral precepts.
