Objective Morals+

[John V]

I think where you're getting confused here, as do many who offer similar arguments, is that "subjective = anything goes". Like with many Christian apologetic arguments, you over-simplify and create false dichotomies. In this case, either there is a celestial overlord or anything goes.

No, I don’t think that subjective=anything goes.

In reality, not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are better supported by objective data and rational argument than others.

Let's say, for example, that I employ a salesman who claims to be doing a "great job" by his own estimation. I differ, saying he's doing a "terrible job". These are two subjective evaluations of his performance. So, since they are subjective, both are equally valid, right?

At this point, yes.

Wrong. I can point out that this hypothetical salesperson hasn't brought in any new customers over X number of months, hasn't successfully cross-sold on any product lines, etc. He has nothing but his bare assertion and feelings to offer.

At this point, your evaluation is no longer subjective. This bait-and-switch is the typical atheist tactic on this issue.

Perhaps we're tripping over different ideas of what that word means. When you say "objective morality", do you mean that we can mathematically determine the most moral course of action in any given situation? Can we plug numbers into a spread sheet to provide analysis on the best thing to do? Are there units of morality, that can measure it as we can with temperature, mass or velocity?

What does this term mean to you? Let's establish that first before we discuss what morality is.

I checked dictionary.com on objective, and these two definitions seem most on point:

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective ).

As you note later, an objective morality would be something which could be discovered and presented in a way that all reasonable people would agree with it. Like your sales figures above – they are what they are.

So by "agree", you mean we would come to the same conclusion. If we come to the same conclusion, we evaluate morality the same way. If we evaluate morality the same way, we can discover the same moral code with sufficient knowledge.

Where did my analysis of your statement go wrong?

I said more people might agree. You ignore the more and might, focus only on the agree, and incorrectly restate it as “we would come to the same conclusion.”