Do you wish there's a god?

[pocaracas]

FFS, stop making stupid analogies!

A fact is a true statement about reality.... or as true as human consensus makes it.

I think it was WLC that noted that any argument made against objective morality, can be equally made against objective truth. Instead of me having to show you this, you seem to making this argument yourself. You’re not only denying mind independent/objective moral truths, but mind independent/truths all together.

Oh, boy...
Why do you keep treating "truth" as something that exists independently of a statement?
I'm amazed at how I've been failing to convey the importance of the statement in connection with that statement's "truth" value.
Statements cannot exist absent of minds, consciousnesses or whatever.... and, as an obvious corollary, neither can truth.

I'm starting to think that you have an inherent difficulty in distinguishing reality from whatever is this thing you call "truth".
Perhaps due to a lifetime to ingraining of some warped concept of "truth", as can be found in the Christian doctrine...

My argument is that moral truths, are like objective truths about reality, and not like subjective opinions or tastes, and rather than arguing otherwise, you’ve resorted to denying the existence of objective truths all together. That they they cease to exist absent of conscience minds to confirm them. (I’m not sure why you don’t take it a step further and suggest that reality doesn’t exist absent of minds to confirm it’s existence). At this point you might as well argue for solipsism.

So much to unpack... so little patience to do it...
I'll give it a quick go...

My gripe is probably with your usage of the word "truth". See above for clarification on what I mean by "truth". Whatever it is that you mean, you have thus far failed to convey a clear enough definition.

Reality is what it is and no amount of objectivity is going to do a dent in it. One can go for solipsism, but I find that to be a waste of time, so... no.
An accurate description of reality can be said to be a true statement, or one with a high "truth" value. I guess this is the sort of thing that you are calling "objective truth".

Moral statements exist as an emergent part of the social aspect of any social species. Some are intuitive, due to their genetic nature, while some are learned, and some are extensions of the other two types.
These statements may not even be verbal. I suppose that a worker ant has only its genetics to thank for considering it to be wrong to eat the queen's eggs, huh? And the ant's genetics developed to be like this in order for the colony to thrive and survive... where colonies with more such ants would prosper while colonies with immoral ants would collapse and win the Darwin Award.

Rather than arguing against my point, you’ve just moved the argument some place else instead. It’s no longer about whether moral truth, is better categorized as objective or subjective, but whether there’s even such a thing as objective truth.

It's a pet peeve of mine to educate you guys as to the meaning of the word "truth". I see it misused so often, that I feel compelled to lend a hand... sadly, the indoctrination on you guys is so strong that you can't grasp the basics of what I mean.

And you’ve done this repeatedly. Rather than dealing with the argument I made, you’ve tried to move it to some argument that barely resembles the one I’m making regarding morality.

That's because you're not using language properly.

You're trying to make the argument that morality is a objective thing, while offering nothing as a reasoning for this, except for your intuitive(?) feeling that it is so.
I've been repeatedly telling you that morality is very likely only an emergent property of social species. That's it, nothing more.

Everything else I write here is an attempt to clarify the way I'm conveying this message, while I try to understand your position a bit better, to see from where you got such an idea.

The question assumes impartial observers... ideally non-human conscious observers. Aliens? Why would aliens have morals equivalent to humanity?

There you go again, changing my argument. I didn’t say anything about non-human, or alien observers, just an objective observers.

An objective observer of mankind can only be non-human. Since no Earth creature has a consciousness similar or more detailed than ours, I assumed you meant an alien. I'm sorry for following the logic through...

I also didn’t say anything about this observers personal beliefs or own moral views. In fact all this observers needed to understand is the human genre of objective truths, vs that of subjective opinions and tastes,

I guess they would understand that "objective truths" are accurate representations of the reality as observed by the humans and should be equal to all those possessing the same sensory apparatus.
While the subjective opinions are preferences shown by individuals and nearly each individual has his/her own unique set.

If they looked at the way we talk about morality, moral statements, moral arguments, moral beliefs, etc… they would recognize that such perceptions resemble objective truths, and not subjective opinions. The statements like torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, more resemble statements like 1+1 =2, and not statements like The Notebook was a terrible movie.

I disagree...

Given that the moral aspect applies to the society, it is then seen as a unique set to a particular society, while some preferences may be different to different societies... which is clearly what we observe in human history.
The moral statement "My life is worth more than that of a Jew" has often been considered true on many Christian societies, while it would be false in a Jewish community.
This example illustrates how a moral statement can be subjective, not as pertaining to an individual person, but rather pertaining to the whole community. With different communities having different sets of moral rules.

Yes, but they only become relevant when they inform some action, some behavior.
If a positive disposition towards harming other humans is not passed on to a corresponding behavior, then such a trait tends to be propagated down the genetic line.
I don't know how wrong such a husband and thief would perceive what they're doing as they're doing it... typically, a greater good is somehow perceived.

Again, shifting my argument. I’m arguing about moral beliefs and perceptions, and here you’re going on about moral behaviors.

That's because behavior is what determines if the intuitive moral perception gets propagated to subsequent generations, reinforcing it or trying to eliminate it.

Secondly, there’s plenty of things people know are wrong, yet do them. I know I shouldn’t eat that cookie, but I give into temptation. I know it’s wrong to cheat on my wife, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to do it. I know it’s wrong to keep the wallet you dropped, but the money is so tempting to keep.

“For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.”

Mostly minor things. Like I hinted at before, there's a spectrum of seriousness on morality...
To top that off, sometimes, you have opposing moral considerations, like "it's wrong to kill this baby, but it will feed my two children for a few days and keep them alive".
Conflicting moral rules force you to pin each of them in a particular position in that spectrum and may the best one win.

Certainly killing someone is more serious than infidelity which is more serious than cheating at some game... The emotional reaction to those should also fall within an equivalent scale.
"It's wrong to cheat and you should be ashamed" might be something that a parent may tell the child.

Again, changing my argument. I indicated the moral statements, such as the ones I tell my children, are not akin to expressing my disgust, or implying that my children should act in ways that don’t disgust me.

Even the statement “its wrong to cheat and you should be ashamed”, doesn’t mean that it’s only wrong if you feel ashamed. It’s wrong even if you don’t feel ashamed about it.

How do you tell that it's wrong?
I'm of the opinion that it starts with the emotional part. Shame brings forth the realization that the action (cheating) is wrong.

"It's wrong and disgusting to torture a baby" is another,

Exactly, it’s wrong and disgusting. The meaning of wrong is not synomous with disgusting. Or else you statement would be “It’s disgusting and disgusting to torture a baby”

I'm clearly using "wrong" as a catch-all to those things that make us feel uncomfortable with our own actions.
With some actions making us feel more uncomfortable (usually due to being more onerous to the society) and thus need to go on a "wronger" position of the spectrum.

Again, you feel it as an objective observation very likely because it's an inherited trait stemming from inwardly acknowledging that such practices lead to a less healthy, less happy, more suffering population.
The same happens for things like incest.

I’m not feeling an objective observation, I’m perceiving and recognizing an objective observation. Might as well say I feel the chair in my room is real, because it’s an inherited trait.

But perhaps you mean something like this: That our strong feelings of disgust leads us to falsely believe that morality exist objectively. We feel the wrongness of something so strongly we can’t believe it’s just an internal biological sensation, we’re compelled to believe something like a moral law out there in the fabric of reality, like a mirage?

Hey!!! You do get it!

It's immoral because of the awareness that carrying out such practices leads to a worse society.

No it isn’t. In fact we seem aware of the wrongness of things, like torturing innocent babies just for fun, prior to assessing whether it has any real impact on our particular society or not.

Perhaps there’s some ruler in some country which we’re dependent on economically, who rapes and murders little children. We may find that it’s better for our society, and it’s material needs, not to intervene, to allow the practice to continue. But this doesn’t mean that we don’t see the act as wrong.

Torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, even if it has no real impact on the wellbeing of our particular society.

You're applying one of those intuitive moral rules, those that apply to small social groups, to a greater international society, while including your own view of mankind as globally the same.
I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong... just that the spectrum still needs to apply. And the wronger nature of the murder of little children seems to overtake any economic gain.

Was it right to do such marginalization? From the overwhelming mideval European christian point of view, it was. From our more globalist point of view, it wasn’t.

No, the overwhelming European christian view wasn’t that it’s okay to marginalize people, to scapegoat, or blame innocent people for things they didn’t do. They just deluded themselves into denying that this is what they were doing. It’s not that we’re operating on the same perception of reality and disagreeing, but one is operating on a false perception of reality to justify their actions.

I'm saying that such a false perception had been simmering for centuries.