Objective Morality, Anyone?

[Rampant.A.I.]

What is objective morality?

Excellent question and one I always ask any theist who talks about the "Moral Argument."

To me, "objective" means that you can measure it in ways that are not subject to opinion or personal values. Most things I can think of that are objective (temperature, velocity, mass, etc.) can be expressed in mathematical terms. If the room temperature is 60 degrees Fahrenheit, this is an objective measurement. "Gee, it's cold in here" is a subjective evaluation of the temperature.

So how does one plug numbers into a spreadsheet to measure morality?

It also seems like anytime someone says "good" or "bad" with regards to a certain reality, it's a subjective evaluation. Is it "good" that the temperature is forecast to be in the 40s and 50s this week? I think so because the snow will melt. Someone who likes playing in the snow might not think so.

In fact, morality by definition is a values system. Since "objective" means not influenced by values, then isn't "objective morality" an oxy-moron?

Now it's important to note that just because something is "subjective" does not mean all opinions are equal in merit. Some subjective opinions are better supported by logic and objective data. If I say it is "good" that the temperature is rising, I can make use of economic data to show the damage done by the winter storms and express it in objective terms. Consequently, my subjective opinion has an objective basis of support.

This is why we have a justice system. Both sides of a case argue their points and provide evidence for their arguments. The side that has the more persuasive case usually wins.

An example I've used before is a salesman working for me that I deem to be "bad". Of course, he says he's a "good" salesman. So since we both have subjective evaluations, both opinions are equal in merit, right? Not so. I can point to objective data showing zero new customers, zero cross-sells, zero reactivated accounts and zero contribution to my top line. All he has to support his subjective evaluation is his feelings on the matter. Ergo, my case has more support and is a stronger argument.

Morality is subjective but that does not mean "anything goes".

Jeremy Bentham tried "plugging in the numbers" with Hedonic Calculus, attempting to devise a system that would maximize the most good for the largest number of people. Kant tried with moral absolutes.

There are simply no absolutes, and no easy answers. People want an absolute source of morality to refer to, but it remains subjective: We do the best we can. Moral principles are guidelines, but simply can't encompass every possible situation, famous examples being that there
are situations where the only morally acceptable choice is to lie.