Objective morality

[genkaus]

An axiom cannot be substantiated.

It can, however, be shown to be self-evident. If your axiom is expected to stand here, it must be shown to be so. Otherwise, anyone can make any inane and outlandish statement and escape the burden of proof by claiming it an axiom.

The integrity of the All is one such axiom. Integrity means being a complete whole. The All is reality taken as a whole.

Actually, integrity would mean more than completeness. It'd require consistency within the completeness to be considered integrated.

Suppose the opposite were true.

Now you are getting it. One way to show that an axiom is self-evident is by showing that its opposite is self-refuting.

The sum total of reality, the All, lacked something real. The All cannot be the All if it lacks a real thing. The missing thing plus the apparent All would be the actual All. Thus integrity is a necessary characteristic of reality.

Nice try, but no dice. Suppose the All lacked internal consistency. Then it would still be the All or the Whole, but it would not be integrated. Thus, integrity is not a necessary characteristic.

Besides, your metaphysical position of what constitutes the whole is also unsubstantiated.

If we consider the elegance of how physical reality fits together with all its constants and forces in perfect balance, harmony doesn’t seem to be that much of a stretch. I just don’t know how to get to there yet.

Fits together? What fits together? I see gravity pulling stuff in, electromagnetic forces pushing them away. I see the moon going further and the Andromeda coming closer. I see heavenly bodies constantly bombarding into each-other, not twirling around, elegantly to avoid collisions. I don't see a balance, just a momentary illusion of one with all the pushing and pulling and bumping and changing courses. That's not balance, that's chaos.

True. What I mean by universal is everywhere the same for all moral agents, even Klingons and Hutts, although application of the universal moral standard would differ according to the issues specific to their species. A standard is not the same as a code. A standard is like a ruler. You may choose to draw lines without it, but if you want to draw a straight line you let the ruler guide you. You can also use the ruler to determine the straightness of lines already drawn to determine which are true. Just as straightness is a real relationship within reality, we can compare approximately straight lines to the ideal truly straight line. (darn, I had to use the word ideal!) And no, straightness is not a made up construct of the human mind; it is a pre-existing relationship within reality that we learn to recognize.

I agree with you here, but I would still suggest on giving up the use of the word "universal". It has a specific spatio-temporal connotation which is clearly not applicable here.

Hmmm…objectivity refers to real things, actual objects with true relationships between them. I am saying that there is a relationship between moral agents as parts of reality to the whole of it, the All. In that relationship, parts only partially manifest attributes of the All, in this case the integrity of the All and its presumed harmony.

None of this would mean anything unless you can convince me of the soundness of your metaphysical premises - specifically, the integrity and harmony present in the All as well as what constitutes the All.

Because making reference to the moral standard guides one toward happiness. We strive for virtues that make us and our local environment more complete and harmonious, to make full the glass half-full.

That is unjustified. Your moral code has the purpose of achieving integrity and harmony - whatever that may mean - but there is no guarantee that it'd necessarily achieve such a fickle and subjective value as happiness.