I didn’t post this, so you might want to reply to what I actually wrote.
And as someone with a degree in philosophy, I realize there’s no “experts” in the field. You need to show why objective morality should be taken as true instead of just saying that “experts” are saying it is.
Sorry about that I somehoiw had your name in the reply box when I was replying to Ygrene Imref.
I have also studied morality and ethics and when I say experts I mean that as you have studied this at an academic level you will understand the topic better than lay people so therefore are in more of a position to know and your opinion in surveys is more qualified because of this.
I thought that over the many pages I have posted that I have already showed that objective morality is true. So it is becoming obvious that some are not reading that linked support which would support my position and therefore be addressing that support rather than keep saying I need to show evidence. It begins to become futile after a while. The survey was a very small part of the support and di have posted ample support for objective morality. Here is a summary of some of the evidence I have posted to support objective morality.
First we must define morality to be able to know what we are talking about when we say that there are certain moral objectives.
So a very broad definition of morality can be the
distinction between right and wrong as it relates to conscious beings, with right actions being those that intend to positively affect conscious beings, and wrong actions being those that intend to negatively affect conscious beings when it cannot be avoided. When we call something morally wrong, what are we actually saying?
We are saying that someone is intentionally negatively affecting another conscious being or that someone is unnecessarily causing harm, suffering, pain, or death to another conscious being.
In order to justify any set of morals rationally, you must make a case demonstrating why they’re good, productive or beneficial to conscious beings and whether or not they seek to avoid unnecessary misery. When doing so, we will be able to establish to what degree they increase human welfare and well-being, or decrease suffering and misery. Therefore, there exists an objective standard that can determine any moral code against any other.
I think I've made that case by noting that since
morality can only exist when living conscious beings exist, morality is axiomatically tied into the well-being of conscious life, and so logically, the greater the consciousness of the beings, the greater the severity of moral concern. From this we can derive that we ought to concern ourselves with the welfare of conscious beings (especially us) since we are capable of moral responsibility.
Now we need to determine how morals can be objective.
In order to justify any set of morals rationally, you have to make a case demonstrating why they’re good, productive or beneficial to conscious beings and whether or not they seek to avoid unnecessary misery. When doing so, we will be able to establish to what degree they increase human welfare and well-being, or decrease suffering and misery.
This becomes part of the objective standard.
If we want to boil some water and we do not know how we may ask a friend. They say by putting ice in the pan this will allow the water to boil. Another friend says no you have to stare at the water and this will cause it to boil. It doesnt take brains to know that both these methods are wrong and that the laws of physics tell us that it is only by adding heat that we can make the water boil. So we can objectively say that adding ice and staring at the water will not cause it to boil. There may be different ways to add that heat such as on a cooktop, a fire or in a microwave. So, we can say that
objectively, there are better and worse ways to achieve the goal of getting water to boil.
Morality can be seen in much the same way. There are objectively better and worse ways to promote the common well-being and decrease unnecessary harm and suffering. We can debate over exactly what actions, rules and laws will best materialize this, but the fact remains that there are better and worst ways to achieve this goal that are truthful from an objective standpoint and are not merely relegated to the domain of human opinion.
And even if we don't know what are the best morals to achieve this goal they will always exist independently in theory waiting to be discovered and put into practcie.
How do we define human wellbeing.
With morality we're mostly concerned with how we treat each other, not ourselves. As such, how do we know what positively benefits others? Everyone's needs and responses are slightly different, so we can never know what benefits everyone in every situation. However, our biological similarities are enough for us to know what is most likely a benefit or a harm to other people's well-being.
A Case For Secular Morality: Objective Morality Without God
There are moral facts just like there are facts about physical laws.
The reality is that there is a core set of moral norms that almost all humans accept. We couldn’t live together otherwise. For humans to live together in peace and prosper, we need to follow norms such as do not kill, do not steal, do not inflict pain gratuitously, tell the truth, keep your commitments, reciprocate acts of kindness, and so forth. The number of core norms is small, but they govern most of the transactions we have with other humans.
This is why we see these norms in all functioning human societies, past and present. Any community in which these norms were lacking could not survive for long.
These shared norms also reflect the functions of morality as applied to the human condition. Earlier I observed that morality has certain functions; that is, it serves human interests and needs by creating stability, providing security, ameliorating harmful conditions, fostering trust, and facilitating cooperation in achieving shared and complementary goals.
One can quibble about my wording, but that morality has something like these functions is beyond dispute.
Given that humans are vulnerable to harm, that we depend upon the honesty and cooperation of others, and that we are animals with certain physical and social needs, the norms of the common morality are indispensable.
We can see now how morality has the type of objectivity that matters. If we regard morality as a set of practices that has something like the functions I described, then not just any norm is acceptable as a moral norm. “
Lie to others and betray them” is not going to serve the functions of morality. Because of our common human condition, morality is not arbitrary; nor is it subjective in any pernicious sense. When people express fears about morality being subjective, they are concerned about the view that what’s morally permissible is simply what each person feels is morally permissible.
But morality is not an expression of personal taste. Our common needs and interests place constraints on the content of morality. Similarly, if we regard morality as serving certain functions, we can see how facts about the world can inform our moral judgments. If morality serves to provide security and foster cooperation, then unprovoked assaults on others run counter to morality’s aims.
Indeed, these are among the types of actions that norms of the common morality try to prevent.
Facts by themselves do not
entail moral judgments, but if we look upon morality as a set of practices that provide solutions to certain problems, for example, violence among members of the community,
then we can see how facts are relevant to moral judgments. Part of the solution to violence among members of the community is to condemn violent acts and encourage peaceful resolution of disputes.
Facts provide us with relevant information about how to best bring about this solution in particular circumstances.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God
To claim that morality is subjective is a denial of causality – actions have consequences, arise because of natural, psychological and social laws. If you stop eating, you will die. If you stop drinking water, you will die even faster. If you break the social mores of decency or peaceful behaviour in your relationships with others, your life will be affected and even endangered.
If you do not pursue social values in general, you will live isolated from the benefits of civilization. If you do not pursue mental values, you will not have the mental capacity to reason our way through life.
Without such values, you would easily fall prey to any received idea, any scam, you would have no capacity to manage your life. Causality is universal: actions have consequences, causes have effects, if we fail to follow the requirements of life we will fail to live.
The Case for Objective Morality
That would make everyone hypocrites of their own moral positions.
