Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

There IS no objective secular morality. That's a paradox. 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'. 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? So if you've got your standard, you evaluate your actions and those are subjectively good or bad depending on circumstance. 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.

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.

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.

 So it is not a fact or it is always wrong that raping and torturing a child for fun regardless of time, location?

---

How does a feeling or desire make something right or wrong?

Precisely.  So how do you ascertain that your feeling and desires haven't fooled you as you attempt to make your leap from your subjective experience to objective certainty?

So when you see ISIS blind fold 2 men having sex in each other and throw them off a building or when you see ISIS capture a 6 year old girl and rape her do you react and say  "that is wrong what they are doing, it just seems so obvious it is wrong, like 1+1=3 is wrong. But hang on, i am actually sufferring from a delusion when i think this. Evolution has fooled me into thinking it is wrong, it is not wrong, i find it udesirable, but certainly not wrong. Move on, there is nothing to see here."

I mean if OM does not exist, you should really react the same way when you hear these stories about ISIS as you would when you hear one of your mates eat a food you dislike...i mean, if taste in food is subjective, if morality is also subjective, why have stronger thoughts about 1 and not the other?

Is this how you react?