Objective morality

[genkaus]

We have previously agreed that reality is that which exists independent of individual perceptions. In the common analogy, where some see the glass half empty, others see the glass half full.

Which would mean that as far as reality is concerned, neither harmony nor conflict can be inferred as the natural state of things.

Just to me clear, I'm not asserting natural law. As such we will always see strife and conflict.
What I see in the natural world are local and imperfect expressions of the ultimate reality. The All is complete, or one, which means it has integrity. Harmony is currently a bit of a stretch and for now, a working hypothesis.

As of now, your metaphysical assertion of ultimate reality is unsubstantiated. Your assertions about its characteristics such as being self-integrated is even more so. I don't see any reason to use that as a basis for any morality.

Not fair. You're setting up an infinite regress. If I set forth a standard, then you say a standard is needed to choose the standard. If I give a standard for choosing a standard, then you'll want a standard for the standard for choosing a standard. That would get us nowhere.

That is why Hume's is-ought problem is still unsolved.

Having a standard to choose still means you can choose not to recognize the standard. If I set forth objective standard by which to judge actions, anyone can still say, "Why 'should' I accept that standard?" You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

An objective moral standard would be a univerally applicable something to which anyone could point as a guide for an ethical life and allows for rational discussion about how to apply it. One could still reject it, but ideally, if the standard were truly objective, one could not supply a good reason not to follow it.

This is the point where I return to Aristotle's 'Nichomachean Ethics.' Everyone pursues happiness because it is the good that all desire. To me the problem is not whether a moral standard exists (harmonious integrity or similar) or even the reason (happiness) for following it. The problem is recognizing the standard in a given situation and how it applies.

Let me tell you where you went wrong. Here you are presenting a set of moral standards that you call "universal moral standard". I don't think that your moral standard has what it takes to be universal, but let's put that aside for a moment. If your standard was universal, then it'd e applicable at all times and to all choices where morality is relevant.

Now, you also identified something as "Universal moral choice". I don't get the significance of the word universal here, but moral choice means it can be made with reference to a moral code, in this case, the universal moral code. This means that your moral code should tell a person why he should adopt that moral code as his own, because if it doesn't, then it wouldn't be a universal moral code.

On the flip-side, if the code uses itself to argue its own validity, that would be circular reasoning. That would defeat the whole argument. This is a dilemma where either approach would end up defeating your own argument and the reason you get into this is because of what your termed as "Universal Moral Choice".

Few other errors. An objective moral code need not be universal. Principles applicable in a particular time and place may differ without affecting the objectivity. Secondly, you have not been able to provide a good reason to follow your integrity-oriented moral code. The closest you came was from the natural law argument for integrity and harmony, but that was not enough.