Ethics

[Pyrrho]

Granted, there are many approaches, I don't think it's possible to describe a mind-independent reality of "the Good" that everyone can agree on... 

That is a ridiculous standard, both because it can never be met, due to the fact that there is probably nothing upon which everyone agrees (ever hear of the Flat Earth Society?), and also because it is generally irrelevant to what is true.  Agreement does not mean that one has reached the truth.

If everyone suddenly agreed that God existed, God would not suddenly poof into existence.  Generally speaking, what people believe and what is true need not have anything to do with each other.


Also, "mind-independent" does not mean the same thing as "objective."  "People have minds" is an objective statement (whether it is true or false), and it clearly deals with minds, so it is not "mind-independent."

 shifting the good to happiness or utility makes it no more objective or solvable when two parties conflict in their conception of happiness or utility or the means of achieving it.

First, objective and solvable are entirely different ideas.

Regarding objectivity, "objective" is contrasted with "subjective."  If ethics were purely subjective, purely a matter of personal preference, then utilitarianism would be false.  According to utilitarianism (and for the sake of simplicity, I will stick to Bentham's version), what is good is what brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number, not what one simply prefers.

Whether Bentham's principle is true or not is irrelevant to whether it is an objective concept or not.  "Yesterday I drank a gallon of beer" is a statement that is objective, regardless of whether it is true or not (it is not a matter of mere opinion whether or not I drank a gallon of beer; it is a matter of objective fact whether or not I drank a gallon of beer yesterday).

Now, if you want to use the phrase "ethical objectivism" in a nonstandard way, I cannot stop you from doing so, but if you want to effectively communicate with others, it is good to keep to standard usage of expressions as much as possible.

As for the concept of solvable, you are going to have a very hard time determining whether or not I drank a gallon of beer yesterday.  Your inability to solve the problem (or, if you prefer, your inability to know the truth or falsehood of the statement) has no bearing on whether it is true or false.  Likewise, if Bentham is correct, it is entirely possible that you may never know it.

Just to be clear, I am using Bentham as an example, and am not endorsing his views or any form of utilitarianism.  The point is that it is a form of ethical objectivism, and it has, at least conceptually, a very clear notion of what it is to be good.  There are many other examples of ethical objectivism, and they generally do not rely on the existence of a god.  Ethics and religion are two separate areas of thought, which you should know from having read Plato's Euthyphro.