In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order

[Acrobat]

When I see individuals in this thread saying morality is subjective and others objective, it makes me wonder if both are saying that morality is exclusively subjective or exclusively objective without any referent or overlap into the other category.

Thoughts?

It depends on the type of overlap you're referring to.

Those like myself who subscribe to a view of Good as property of some non-natural reality, like Platos Form for the Good, mean this exists exclusively objective, like the Sun, or the table in my room.

But like that nature of all such truths, we perceive it subjectively, like my perception of the sun is subjective, meaning I perceive it through my head, and discerns it's independence (objective existence) through my mind.

Others seem to smuggle the objectiveness of good and bad, into the objectiveness of the scientific and historic facts surrounding x. A position I find false. I acknowledge the objectiveness of good and bad, but we won't find in the scientific and historic facts about x .