Objective Morality and Subjective Morality

[Sulthus]

After having repeatedly heard (Mainly atheists) say that "Objective Morality isn't real." One problem I have with this is that what they are trying to say is that MORAL REALISM cannot exist, objective morality is when one bases their morality around something (Utilitarianism is an example of this). I cannot get around the fact that moral statements can be broken down into If (A) Then (B) Therefore ©. I have heard the fallacy that its fallacious that you cant get a therefore out of an if. I have also heard these same people turn around and say that there is definitely an objective truth or hint that they believe this (Which would require an objective morality...most of this comes from youtube). One of my questions: (at least a basic version of this question is...) how can one say that moral realism cannot exist (...not to be confused with objective morality) when there is no real evidence for either side? Also, being as there are facts in philosophy, how is it so far fetched that there are not also moral facts? Most people whom make this claim tend to turn around and give reasons for why they think or believe a certain way, but if it were all subjective, then it shouldn't matter what facts one can give, being as all experience is different. The previous sentence seems also to contradict with their belief in subjectivity. There is also a contradiction here, if all facts with in subjectivity are...subjective...then how does one explain the objective fact that all of morality is subjective? All that is known is that no one has yet come up with either a third alternative to both subjective/moral realism, and that no one has yet thought of a moral system that is in fact the (possibly obvious) moral truth. Also, should it matter if there is no such thing as moral realism if the philosophy works better? (Better is both a subjective and objective thing)

Moral realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism)

Subjectivity refers to the subject and his or her perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1] In philosophy, the term is usually contrasted with objectivity.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity)

[The Omnissiunt One]

After having repeatedly heard (Mainly atheists) say that "Objective Morality isn't real." One problem I have with this is that what they are trying to say is that MORAL REALISM cannot exist, objective morality is when one bases their morality around something (Utilitarianism is an example of this). I cannot get around the fact that moral statements can be broken down into If (A) Then (B) Therefore ©.

The key is the 'if'. The 'if' statement may not be true, hence moral non-realism.

One of my questions: (at least a basic version of this question is...) how can one say that moral realism cannot exist (...not to be confused with objective morality) when there is no real evidence for either side?

Well, there's the Argument from Relativity and the Argument from Queerness for a start. Moral facts would be pretty odd things if they existed.

Also, being as there are facts in philosophy, how is it so far fetched that there are not also moral facts?

'Being as there are facts about the Moon, how is so far fetched that there should be facts about God?' See the similarity here?

Most people whom make this claim tend to turn around and give reasons for why they think or believe a certain way, but if it were all subjective, then it shouldn't matter what facts one can give, being as all experience is different. The previous sentence seems also to contradict with their belief in subjectivity. There is also a contradiction here, if all facts with in subjectivity are...subjective...then how does one explain the objective fact that all of morality is subjective?

You seem to be confusing moral non-realism with epistemological subjectivism. People can still make factual claims about the status of morality if they're moral non-realists.

All that is known is that no one has yet come up with either a third alternative to both subjective/moral realism, and that no one has yet thought of a moral system that is in fact the (possibly obvious) moral truth.

There are many alternative non-realist theories to moral subjectivism, if that's what you're talking about e.g. error theory.

Also, should it matter if there is no such thing as moral realism if the philosophy works better? (Better is both a subjective and objective thing)

Here, I agree.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Morality is essentially pragmatic, not based on any transcendent ideals nor indeed on any external moral authority,which the notion of objective morality implies..

Here 'pragamtism' means 'perceived self interest',the most powerful and most common human motive,based on the most powerful instinct;survival. In my opinion, that makes morality subjective.

IF morality were objective, I would expect easily recognised, universal,absolute, moral imperatives. So far, I've never actually come across even one.