Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

.Khemikal

There IS no objective secular morality.

A great many secular moral objectivist theorists would be astonished to be so informed.

That's a paradox.

Why?  What is paradoxical about a secular objective morality, precisely?  

You expect that kind of thing out of a theist proponent, but attaching it to any sort of secular humanist philosophy, it's just...blech. There's no way to say 'X action is always across time and regardless of who perpetrates it, bad/good morally'.

That is -not- an objective morality.  That is moral absolutism.

Objective principles can be established as the framework for good or bad, yes, but not actions across the board. If your principle isn't well-being, but getting god's dick hard or soft for example, your actions are going to be different in terms of whether they're morally good or bad, aren't they?

Why would a secular objective morality's metrics be getting a gods dick hard or soft?  Why, for that matter, would a religious morality's metrics be the relative firmness of the divine schlong?  Couldn;t thewy..too, refer to well-being?  I mean, I'm pretty sure that they do, that they are...even if they get it wrong alot.  

So if you've got your standard, you evaluate your actions and those are subjectively good or bad depending on circumstance.

...............?  If you've got a standard, and you've got objective facts relevant to that standard...in what way is the judgement subjective?

Morality is about actions and their consequences but because the principle can change depending on your viewpoint, it's better to ground it in something that can be determined empirically. Even then, science can reveal new information and potentially yield something that would merit changing the foundation and principle. It's in flux based on what we learn and as we improve our understanding.

In flux with what we can objectively demonstrate..you mean?  I agree.  

Let's also not forget that people are subjective creatures. What I consider good for my well-being might differ from what you think, but if I have a certain goal in mind, there may be a trade-off that has to be made for some benefit in the long run that just can't be seen or which I value more than you happen to (like owning a very expensive car despite it putting a big dent in my savings that could be better spent elsewhere or something. Or I just may prefer a certain approach to things like how I get bad news delivered or if I prefer to have someone be bluntly honest with me even if it hurts my feelings as opposed to preferring to be handled gingerly. Those are subjective principles, where a higher priority is placed on honesty in one case than another, but honesty itself is still part of the overall principle.

I think you use the term subjective as sloppily as you use the term objective...but I agree.  We are subjective creatures.  That doesn't actually pose an issue for an objective morality - though it implies that in some ways our access to it would be limited.  

So there's no objective 'good' or 'bad' actions, and even the principles are in flux even if there's a certain goal in mind and there are simplistic definitions to it. 'Life and health - good' and 'Death and suffering - bad' is all well and good if you want to label those as objective but there's gradients and what work for some don't work for others in all cases. All we can do is our best, and negotiate, honor the social contract we believe will best benefit us according to what we value, and take care to learn and evolve. Objective standards don't leave room for any of that. That's just asking to kowtow to an authoritarian dictator, and as I pointed out, not even that gets you anywhere with objective standards.

Yes, all we can do is our best.  It; hard to tell what our best is without some sort of standard..and it;s hard to judge progress towards that goal without objective metrics.  I till don;t see...anywhere, that you've managed to prove that there are no objective moral propositions.   You just keep repeating that they're subjective in a way that suggests you may not have a firm grasp on the subject of objective moral theory.  

Let's try an experiment, shall we?  Is rape bad?  Is it bad..because I say it's bad?  Is it bad, only because it is my opinion that it is bad...and were I to hold another opinion..it would not be bad?  In fact, can anyone or anything make rape not bad, by simply being of the opinion that it's not bad?  Does something about rape change...based on the opinions of people?

I'm getting a little sick of this. I honestly wasn't even initially responding to you, I was bitching out Henry and you just kind of stuck your head in. That secular humanist morality isn't based on an appeal to authority unlike religious 'morality' makes calling it objective a paradox. I would have thought that was obvious.

Objective means it can be determined to produce X result consistently whether we like it or not. If that result (consequences) changes (because we live in the real world), it's not objective (nor absolute, but that one is so obvious it's not even worth bringing up). Throwing my fist forward with all my strength is not always going to produce the same result or have the same consequences. It's purely situational, and even then, time and circumstance can change the results and corresponding consequences.

'A great many secular moralists would disagree', way to appeal to authority. If it's true, it's true, whether the majority agree or not. Even if you're right, you're committing a fallacy.

I'm just about done with this inane conversation but even rape is subjective, and here's how: Cows need to be impregnated to produce milk. Cows can't exactly give consent to sex, so...we force them to breed, which you could call rape. But we get milk and that makes us happy, and if you stop there without going into painful milking procedures and whatnot, there's a good and bad consideration there where it could be argued that the cows don't really understand what's happening and we derive great pleasure from drinking or cooking with milk. Or if you insist on using humans only (see how even well-being is subjective? We have to decide if it only applies to humans, or to what degree it applies to everything else) then let's say it's an apocalyptic era and the human population is drastically reduced. We need babies. The surviving women aren't really interested in the male stock available. In the interest of the species, an argument could at least be made. Reprehensible as this would be in 99.999999999% of situations, there's that small exception that makes things debatable.