(October 8, 2018 at 7:18 am)polymath257 Wrote: But the point is that it isn't just one person's viewpoint. The vast majority of people agree on the basics, as I'm sure you agree. That is what keeps it from being arbitrary: the people still decide.
One problem is how people use the word "objective." Sometimes it seems people want it to mean "eternal and universal," in the way we assume the laws of nature are unchanging and everywhere. But I don't think "objective" means this. I think it's closer to what you mean -- non-arbitrary, not just personal.
For example, for a long time, people thought that ulcers were caused by stress. Doctors would -- objectively -- tell their patients that this was the case. But it turns out everybody was wrong, and ulcers are caused by H. pylori, or whatever it's called. They were objective, but the best explanation changed.
"Moral realism" seems much clearer, for this reason. "Objective morality" tends to mislead, I think.
