Objective morality

[Neo-Scholastic]

Where you see integrated, harmonic ecosystems, others may see constant destructive competition. Where you see balance, others might see constantly shifting and fluctuating paradigm of nature where the constant struggle is to unbalance the situation by becoming dominant...

Are these differences that make a difference? Just asking. As a thought problem, suppose I were asserting the opposite. Suppose I said that the ultimate moral standard is to struggle for dominance and amass power all to oneself, i.e. "might makes right." The consistent application of that standard has one set of results. Consistent application of the other principle leads to the opposite outcome.

The universal moral standard is like a perfect movie reviewer. A good movie reviewer is one that consistently steers you toward movies you like. The reviewer who always pans the movies you like is actually one of the best to know. You don't go wrong seeing movies he hates.

When you say that one has an obligation to recognize and incorporate a moral standard into one's life - you are saying one should do that...you have not justified why your moral code for integrity and harmony is automatically the correct one or why one should adopt it.

In searching for a universal moral standard, what I have found is a universal moral choice. True moral agents are those who have the rationality to recognize the nature of the options before them and the freedom to act upon the decisions they face. Choose to build integrity and seek harmony in your environment. Or choose the pursuit of dominance and live with both inner and outer conflit. No one is constrained by any external power (like God) to go either one way or the other.

So what I'm saying is that there is a universal moral standard, but only in the sense that it clarifies without compelling. An objective standard is like a ruler. You can try to draw a straight line by yourself or you can use the ruler. Your choice.