Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Mr.wizard]

Imagine a sign in the distance, occluded by fog, and the slight glare of sunrise.  There are many objective and subjective reasons for this lack of clarity, but the sign still says one thing or another - objectively.  The same could be, would be, and is true of any objective moral system.  There are any number of things that rob us of clarity.  Thankfully, there are also tools to cut through that.

The question is whether a moral "fact" exists "out there" somewhere, like your example sign. I would say not. Rather, a given act has likely and also potentially unexpected / unknowable consequences that we have an imperfect ability to predict.

Torturing innocents for no particular reason is a highly contrived scenario that is unlikely to even happen, but if it did, it cuts so sharply to the needs of society that almost no one would imagine a possible excuse or net benefit and I can't imagine anyone ending up regretting stopping the torture for any likely reason. I mean, if the child grew up to be another Hitler, maybe, but this is stretching.

Back here in the real world where moral conundrums are more prosaic and hazy and our natural impulses are more unhelpful, I don't think there are signs on the horizon that will resolve when we get there. A better metaphor is that there's a foggy landscape that we are unsure of until we're past it and we can tell what it was like by the mud splatters on the car, the damage to the suspension, the dings on the body. Or the lack thereof.

As a society we have the collective input of various actors to say, don't go down this particular road because beyond the likely consequences to you personally, which would normally be your personal problem, it will cause these various problems for us collectively. That's all morality is.

Once upon a time we had different ideas such as that certain sexual activities were inherently harmful or that slavery was acceptable. Our understanding evolved and we changed. Someone a hundred years ago might have felt that a woman showing leg or someone enjoying jazz music was "clearly" a harm and would undermine society. Today we have evolved our understanding of these things. All of this sounds pretty subjective to me, but the subjectivity is beside the point.

Of course morality is subjective, we choose our foundations for morality, but you can't deny that objective conclusions can be reached from subjective foundations. That doesn't mean that every conclusion you reach will be objective, but there will be some. Again if well-being is your foundation then feeding your child battery acid is objectively immoral. It is detrimental to the child's well-being regardless of anyone's subjective opinion, chopping off someone's head is objectively detrimental to their well-being. In my opinion you arguing against "Absolute Morality" and not objective morals.