My views on objective morality

[robvalue]

There's so much confusion over language.

What does morality mean? If it means what a particular person feels is right and wrong, then clearly it's subjective. It makes absolutely no sense to say it's objective. It's not, unless you want to claim everyone agrees about every moral position.

So what's left? What other morality is there, except the morality individuals have?

We can have societal norms. These are what is generally accepted. But these are entirely dependent on the society itself, and so they are again subjective.

What's left after this? Idealised versions of morality. Possible moral systems that could be followed, if we knew what they were. Anyone can pick any arbitrary one of these they like, by just making it up, and follow that. If everyone decided to do the same thing, follow that same arbitrary group of rules and never ever change them, then we would have an objective morality of sorts (although individuals would still interpret principles subjectively) out of an infinite possible number of choices.

So... what is left after all that? The objective morality? The only way this makes sense is if it's the best version of objective morality. Surely, that is what theists actually mean. If they don't, I literally have no idea what they are talking about, and are denying how reality works.

What does it mean to be "the best"? How can we possibly compare two things, of any description, without a criteria?

What is morality supposed to achieve? Unless we specifically agree on this question, "best" is meaningless. The idea that it's "obvious" is exactly the problem. It's not obvious. Everyone has their own slightly different ideas about what goals if should achieve. And as such, the "best" morality would depend, subjectively, on those goals.

So now, what could possibly be left... the best goals? How can you possibly decide what are the best goals... you'd need a criteria for the goals. Where does that criteria come from? Who decides it? How can a goal be objectively the best one, when a neutral universe doesn't care about anything?

Of course, theists are desperately trying to pin this all "on god". He's external, and so it's a standard that doesn't change (although we actually have no idea if he changes or not). However, something that doesn't change isn't necessarily good. In the case of morality, I'd say it's a hideous and dangerous failing. If your only goal is to follow one arbitrary set of rules set out by an external being, you're a mindless automaton. If you don't come up with your own goals for morality, you have no way of knowing whether you're achieving anything except following instructions.

If you do come up with your own goals, and apply your own filter to these rules, then the rules themselves are irrelevant. They are merely a mirror for your own standard by which you judge the rules. In other words, "I do what God says, as long as I was going to do it anyway".