Great marriage advice.

[brewer]

Ok, here are the definitions you linked to:
a :  of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :  ethical moral judgments
b :  expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior: a moral poem
c :  conforming to a standard of right behavior: took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

Right or wrong in relation to what? Right behavior about what? Well, that would be in relation to what is "good" for people, and how people should behave in that dynamic. (i.e. morality only applies to moral agents and not to falling rocks)

So now we have to figure out what it means to be "good" to people. Enter our basic needs as presented in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Our basic needs are not a theory and there is no disagreement about them. The need for food, clean water and air etc...  are objectively good for us. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality. You cannot morally deny a child food and clean water without some other mitigating circumstance that you would have to have a convincing argument for, otherwise you are in contradiction of the definitions of morality that you yourself linked to.

I do not deny that progressing from this moral bedrock is easy but we can build upon this objective core to yield something more comprehensive. You will find the same basic position in Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" where he argues that moral questions will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.
(I have only heard Harris talk about the book, I have not yet read it myself)

bold mine

Manslow, a theory, nothing more. Now I have to question your reading comprehension ability. 

Right or wrong in relation to a human thought or action. Are you being purposefully obtuse? 

Can you please tell me unequivocally what is "objectively good"? If I disagree with you or have a different opinion from you (even if my good is also positive, maybe considered by some better) you've just thrown you case for "objective good" out the window and we will be discussing the subjectivity of "good".

Food, water and air are needs, nothing more, nothing to do with morality. They are necessary to sustain life, seeking them is not a moral decision or judgement. The action to supply another with adequate amounts would be a behavior that you could then decide the morality of. Now, if I provided a child only gummy bears and classic coke, according to you, I'm being moral, I'm fulfilling a need. If another provides nutritious food and purified water they are also being moral. Would you say that one has a different moral standing than the other? If you do then these moral actions/behaviors have just become subjective. 

Yes you can deny a child food and water, it's done all of the time. Not by me, but it's done. 

Maybe you don't understand what "objective" means when it comes to discussing morality.

Edit: An additional thought for you. Theft or stealing, is it objectively (always, in all cases, without question) morally wrong?

[Crunchy]

Ok, here are the definitions you linked to:
a :  of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :  ethical moral judgments
b :  expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior: a moral poem
c :  conforming to a standard of right behavior: took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

Right or wrong in relation to what? Right behavior about what? Well, that would be in relation to what is "good" for people, and how people should behave in that dynamic. (i.e. morality only applies to moral agents and not to falling rocks)

So now we have to figure out what it means to be "good" to people. Enter our basic needs as presented in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Our basic needs are not a theory and there is no disagreement about them. The need for food, clean water and air etc...  are objectively good for us. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. These would be the basic objective facts at the core of morality. You cannot morally deny a child food and clean water without some other mitigating circumstance that you would have to have a convincing argument for, otherwise you are in contradiction of the definitions of morality that you yourself linked to.

I do not deny that progressing from this moral bedrock is easy but we can build upon this objective core to yield something more comprehensive. You will find the same basic position in Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape" where he argues that moral questions will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.
(I have only heard Harris talk about the book, I have not yet read it myself)

Right or wrong in relation to a human thought or action. Are you being purposefully obtuse? 

No, are you?
Thought or action concerning what? Are we talking about your thoughts on Geography? The action of swimming? No, when discussing morality, we are talking about what is good for people. If you can understand that, then you may understand the rest of the post.

[brewer]

Right or wrong in relation to a human thought or action. Are you being purposefully obtuse? 

No, are you?
Thought or action concerning what? Are we talking about your thoughts on Geography? The action of swimming? No, when discussing morality, we are talking about what is good for people. If you can understand that, then you may understand the rest of the post.

Where the hell did geography come from? 

I disagree, moral does not always = good. That's kind of why there is a term, immoral. 

Yep, we can discuss what is considered good or bad, objective/subjective, swimming, if you want. Swimming can be good or not so good. You brought it up, go for it. 

Good is a relative/subjective term. Again, if you believe and can support it, define "objectively good".

Answer the questions:

Can you please tell me unequivocally what is "objectively good"? 

 Now, if I provided a child only gummy bears and classic coke, according to you, I'm being moral, I'm fulfilling a need. If another provides nutritious food and purified water they are also being moral. Would you say that one has a different moral standing than the other?

Theft or stealing, is it objectively (always, in all cases, without question) morally wrong?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right or wrong in relation to a human thought or action. Are you being purposefully obtuse? 

No, are you?
Thought or action concerning what? Are we talking about your thoughts on Geography? The action of swimming? No, when discussing morality, we are talking about what is good for people. If you can understand that, then you may understand the rest of the post.

The problem with this post of yours is that while geography or swimming are objective facts -- South America is, or a person is or is not drowning -- you cannot define a single act of man in the same stark terms.

Let us take killing, for this discussion. I think you and I would agree that killing another human being -- or even another nonhuman animal, perhaps -- is a bad thing. Let's stick to humans, though. Killing humans is bad; we agree that it is immoral, right?

Now, if that human is coming at you with a butcher-knife with obvious aggressive intent, you may well respond with force, and it may so happen that your forceful response results in his death.

Is that the same as you shooting him from your vantage point in a high-rise building? Is that the same as you deciding to save Mary Louise in a shipwreck even though you know it means he will die? Is that the same as you hiring an assassin to kill him?

Of course not is the answer to all those questions. Killing, in itself, may or may not always be wrong. But in either case, the context and circumstances inform the judgement. And that is inherently subjective.

As I said earlier, even a claim of moral objectivity is based on subjective premises. Morality is much more nuanced than you seem to think.

[Crunchy]

No, are you?
Thought or action concerning what? Are we talking about your thoughts on Geography? The action of swimming? No, when discussing morality, we are talking about what is good for people. If you can understand that, then you may understand the rest of the post.

Where the hell did geography come from? 

The explanation was very clear but I'll address it yet again:
This came from your giving no context to morality. You said that morality is "Right or wrong in relation to a human thought or action"

So my reply is that morality is not about ANY thought or action. Like your thoughts on Geography for example would have nothing to do with morality whether you are right or wrong about the capital of Mongolia. It's not a moral question see?
Here is another example. If you are trying to decide between pancakes or eggs for breakfast. Is this a moral dilemma? No, it has nothing to do with morality. Morality is concerning human thought or action in relation to what is perceived as being "good" in an ethical sense, not "good" in terms of what tastes "good". Therefore morality does not apply to ANY thought or action.  

So now, let me know if you understand what I mean when I say that morality is only about being "good" in an ethical sense.  (Immoral would be about being "bad" in an ethical sense)

The reason I'm not addressing your other points is that if you are using a definition of morality inconsistent with it's normal meaning, all other questions are moot.

---

No, are you?
Thought or action concerning what? Are we talking about your thoughts on Geography? The action of swimming? No, when discussing morality, we are talking about what is good for people. If you can understand that, then you may understand the rest of the post.

Of course not is the answer to all those questions. Killing, in itself, may or may not always be wrong. But in either case, the context and circumstances inform the judgement. And that is inherently subjective.

As I said earlier, even a claim of moral objectivity is based on subjective premises. Morality is much more nuanced than you seem to think.

As I replied to Brewer, there are absolutely facts concerning people that are objectively good.
The need for food, clean water and air etc...  are objectively good for us. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things. Nothing subjective at all.

As for nuance, my view is extremely nuanced. When I said that I do not deny that progressing from this moral bedrock is easy but we can build upon this objective core to yield something more comprehensive, that is not an indication that a correct moral judgement is attainable in every situation. There may be many instances where it is difficult to the point of impossibility to determine the correct moral position, and yet this does not invalidate the objective core at the base of morality. This is simply the nature of complex systems.

[brewer]

Where the hell did geography come from? 

The explanation was very clear but I'll address it yet again:
This came from your giving no context to morality. You said that morality is "Right or wrong in relation to a human thought or action"

So my reply is that morality is not about ANY thought or action. Like your thoughts on Geography for example would have nothing to do with morality whether you are right or wrong about the capital of Mongolia. It's not a moral question see?
Here is another example. If you are trying to decide between pancakes or eggs for breakfast. Is this a moral dilemma? No, it has nothing to do with morality. Morality is concerning human thought or action in relation to what is perceived as being "good" in an ethical sense, not "good" in terms of what tastes "good". Therefore morality does not apply to ANY thought or action.  

So now, let me know if you understand what I mean when I say that morality is only about being "good" in an ethical sense.  (Immoral would be about being "bad" in an ethical sense)

The reason I'm not addressing your other points is that if you are using a definition of morality inconsistent with it's normal meaning, all other questions are moot.

Right or wrong also covers good and bad. Right relates to good as wrong relates to bad. And I said a/an action, not any action. Thanks for changing words to fit your position. 

Let me give you the definition of moral again, maybe you can read and understand this time: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

You have no clue what you are talking about when discussing moral objectivity/subjectivity. I believe that's why you won't answer the questions. That's why you bring up landslides, geography, Mongolia and pancakes. Either that or you can't admit when your wrong.  

Either way you're a twat waddle and this discussion is over.

Edit I: Some light reading for you (unsure if this will help): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Edit II: This also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

[Thumpalumpacus]

When I said that I do not deny that progressing from this moral bedrock is easy but we can build upon this objective core to yield something more comprehensive, that is not an indication that a correct moral judgement is attainable in every situation.

I'm having trouble understanding how moral ambiguity can exist inside the framework of moral objectivity.

[Crunchy]

The explanation was very clear but I'll address it yet again:
This came from your giving no context to morality. You said that morality is "Right or wrong in relation to a human thought or action"

So my reply is that morality is not about ANY thought or action. Like your thoughts on Geography for example would have nothing to do with morality whether you are right or wrong about the capital of Mongolia. It's not a moral question see?
Here is another example. If you are trying to decide between pancakes or eggs for breakfast. Is this a moral dilemma? No, it has nothing to do with morality. Morality is concerning human thought or action in relation to what is perceived as being "good" in an ethical sense, not "good" in terms of what tastes "good". Therefore morality does not apply to ANY thought or action.  

So now, let me know if you understand what I mean when I say that morality is only about being "good" in an ethical sense.  (Immoral would be about being "bad" in an ethical sense)

The reason I'm not addressing your other points is that if you are using a definition of morality inconsistent with it's normal meaning, all other questions are moot.

Right or wrong also covers good and bad. Right relates to good as wrong relates to bad. And I said a/an action, not any action. Thanks for changing words to fit your position. 

Let me give you the definition of moral again, maybe you can read and understand this time: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

You have no clue what you are talking about when discussing moral objectivity/subjectivity. I believe that's why you won't answer the questions. That's why you bring up landslides, geography, Mongolia and pancakes. Either that or you can't admit when your wrong.  

Either way you're a twat waddle and this discussion is over.

Edit I: Some light reading for you (unsure if this will help): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Edit II: This also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

 
All we are doing is having a discussion and I have not once baited you or insulted you. My only crime is disagreement. No need to act like an angry child. 

So, I am already familiar with Standfords website and have read it before. Glad you found it. Here is their definition of morality taken from Mill.

:the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which [a happy existence] might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured.

This is exactly what I have been arguing. A happy existence cannot proceed unless our basic necessities are first met which secure our existence in the first place. These necessities are not subjective and the objective facts of our nature force us to gravitate towards our basic needs as a means towards any other end. 
THEREFORE it is an objective fact that our basic needs have utility value, allowing us to survive long enough to pursue any other goal. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things.

Heaven forbid you should encounter ideas you disagree with. Sheesh!

[Crunchy]

When I said that I do not deny that progressing from this moral bedrock is easy but we can build upon this objective core to yield something more comprehensive, that is not an indication that a correct moral judgement is attainable in every situation.

I'm having trouble understanding how moral ambiguity can exist inside the framework of moral objectivity.

I’ll put it like this: The presence of ambiguity (being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness) is the result of complexity, not subjectivity.
As an analogy, you can consider chaos theory. A purely deterministic system becomes quickly unpredictable within a few steps. Like a game of pool. There is no way to predict where all the balls will end up after each break even though the system is 100% deterministic.  

Even though we can agree what our basic objective needs are, it can quickly become very difficult to determine how to achieve these needs in a world of complexity.

I think what you are getting at is how do you weigh conflicting consequences, when an action is good for some and bad for others for example.
But I think this is not a question of subjectivity but rather complexity. Although moral questions are often very difficult to answer, and there are often many satisfactory answers to each one and sometimes no satisfactory answers, this still does not imbue the entire system with subjectivity.  We can (and should) IMO use the principles of rational thought to eliminate the obviously bad answers to those questions. I realize that this is still no guarantee of universal agreement on moral questions. 

I don’t see the issue of ambiguity as a deal breaker for moral objectivity. It does however mean that we may never all come to the same conclusions even if we have the same initial intentions. Like those pesky pool balls that end up all over the place even with the same staring conditions.

[brewer]

Right or wrong also covers good and bad. Right relates to good as wrong relates to bad. And I said a/an action, not any action. Thanks for changing words to fit your position. 

Let me give you the definition of moral again, maybe you can read and understand this time: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

You have no clue what you are talking about when discussing moral objectivity/subjectivity. I believe that's why you won't answer the questions. That's why you bring up landslides, geography, Mongolia and pancakes. Either that or you can't admit when your wrong.  

Either way you're a twat waddle and this discussion is over.

Edit I: Some light reading for you (unsure if this will help): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Edit II: This also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

 
All we are doing is having a discussion and I have not once baited you or insulted you. My only crime is disagreement. No need to act like an angry child. 

So, I am already familiar with Standfords website and have read it before. Glad you found it. Here is their definition of morality taken from Mill.

:the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which [a happy existence] might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured.

This is exactly what I have been arguing. A happy existence cannot proceed unless our basic necessities are first met which secure our existence in the first place. These necessities are not subjective and the objective facts of our nature force us to gravitate towards our basic needs as a means towards any other end. 
THEREFORE it is an objective fact that our basic needs have utility value, allowing us to survive long enough to pursue any other goal. This means that it is an objective moral fact that it is in our interest to value these things.

Heaven forbid you should encounter ideas you disagree with. Sheesh!

Stanford, either can't read, didn't read, or can't comprehend. 

Please, you've baited me several times, the same as I have you. . Don't try to take the high road after the fact, very disingenuous. 

Mill, another theory, and miss quoted, nice! Here is a better quote from the founder: "Jeremy Bentham the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action, minus the suffering of anyone involved in the action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism ...Do you see any subjective elements in the quote? Hint - "minus the suffering". How much suffering? What level of suffering? 

Morals are not a necessity. 

BTW, offering me either pancakes or eggs for breakfast has a moral component if I'm diabetic or have cardiovascular disease due to hypercholesterolemia. 

Heaven forbid you can't support a position on morals

Oops, I morally said "this discussion is over.". That must be subjective/relativism creeping in.