Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Jorg
In the end, it doesn't matter.  A moral realist can agree, entirely, to the subjectivity being asserted.  Moral objectivity does not contend otherwise, or depend on us being otherwise.

[vulcanlogician]

From Wikipedia:

Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:

1. Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.

I'm with Khemikal on this. The first item on the list is what is relevant to our topic. Note that feelings and desires have an irreducible subjective character. But "perspectives" can accurately portray objective phenomena, and "beliefs" can be correct and can conform to objective reality. What I propose is that moral beliefs refer to something objective. A person may believe God exists and be wrong. Assuming that he is wrong, that means a person who believes God does not exist is right. Theists do this shit all the time: I desire that God exists, therefore God exists. I have a feeling God exists, therefore God exists. But God's existence is an objective matter.

What I said in the above paragraph doesn't prove anything about objective morality. But I'm just pointing out how subjectivity's involvement in decidedly objective matters can confuse things.

Indeed, correction noted... 'useful' not 'accurate'.

I would postulate too that this applies to ethics.  Agreed.

Actually, at one point Polymath said that the success of mathematics in describing the physical world indicates that the underlying axioms are "very good approximations." This is to be differentiated from "useful." He said "useful" at another point, but "very good approximations" says something about the ability of systems built upon these axioms to make truth statements.

No, you haven't.  Best to abandon the whole objective/subjective thing altogether.

Everything is relative, man.      

As a living being, perhaps it is good to adopt such a perspective. But when I sit down in my philosopher's chair, one of the first conclusions I arrive at (whereupon I build all subsequent arguments) is that there is an objective reality. We can only understand this reality via subjective experience, but that doesn't change the fact that there is one reality and one truth.

Correct.  Its basis is deeper than that.  Probably quantum... probably.

To me, abstract objects are real. They are distinct from concrete objects, but nonetheless just as real (actual) as anything in the world with physical substance. I am aware that this is seen as an eccentricity by most, but (in my defense) I don't mean this in quite the same way Plato meant it. My ethics resembles that of G.E. Moore-- which is grounded and highly logical analytic philosophy.

Khemikal is a moral naturalist: this view is less eccentric, more intimately related to the sciences, but also he has more explaining to do. My way and his are two viable paths out of moral nihilism. It is interesting to note, however, that once you put aside that one way of refuting nihilism, the naturalist and non-naturalist go about building a moral system in exactly the same way.

Why the switch to 'moral'?  

Equating ethics to morals is like equating governance with event management... different ends of the spectrum.

Philosophers generally don't need to distinguish ethics and morals. You're thinking of lawyers. I will continue to use the terms interchangeably. Sorry if that annoys you. I'll try to stick to "moral" when I can.

Nihilism works for me.  Absurdism would be a better fit.  

Absurdism is more closely related to existentialist/continental forms of philosophy. The absurdist is trying to face/overcome experiential difficulties. The analytical philosopher is trying to understand the world. Apples and oranges. An absurdist can be a moral objectivist. But in the end he says, "Fuck it." Even though morals are objective in his view, his personal experience may dictate that he ignore morality altogether. Admittedly, most absurdists are nihilists of some kind, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are.

Here's a joke if you're in the mood:

---

There has long been a dispute between continental and analytic philosophers. The analytic philosophers accuse the continental philosophers of being insufficiently clear, while the continental philosophers accuse the analytic philosophers of being insufficiently.

---

I have a moral-system (whether I like it or not) because of evolution.  Thanks Darwin!!  

You also have a brain capable of logic due to evolution. That does not make logic a subjective affair. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about using logic, and logic (by its very nature) does not depend upon subjectivity. (Subjective notions can be accepted as premises, but that's a different discussion.) Evolution endowed us with a brain capable of making scientific determinations. That doesn't make science subjective. Evolution endowed us with a brain capable of making moral determinations. (I think you see my point here.)