Ah, moral objectivism... Ok.
If you were to list 10 things that you thought were "good" and 10 things you thought were "bad" from an "objective", things that you were certain were "objective," then surveyed a hundred people who had never been influenced by religion (good luck finding them), you would have disagreement. From your perspective you perceive that your morality is "objective". It certainly feels that way.
Ain't morality the measurement of harm (un)done/prevented?
For example: Raping a woman is morally wrong, preventing a man from raping a woman is morally good, providing support and therapy to a rape victim is morally good.
The first causes severe and permanent harm to the woman, with the rapist deriving significant pleasure from the rape.
The second avoids the woman from suffering the act, as the rapist has been neutralized. This is good, as the morally wrong act has been prevented through the efforts of others.
The third endeavors to help the victim in continuing with life, as well as providing emotional support. This is good, as it is an attempt to negate some of the harm done in favour of the victim.
I'll concede that morality isn't so simple as the following exchange:
"This is bad!"
"No it isn't!"
"You're wrong!"
"Oh, you're right."
Naturally, explaining of why acts are moral, are immoral, is necessary to pass judgement. The issue arises is when people claim something to be moral or not in absence of moral reasoning; I.E, it's immoral to eat pork because the book says so. Or that it's immoral to wear more than one fabric because the book says so. Or that it's immoral to suggest that seawater and freshwater mix, because the book says they don't.
"Objective" is defined as - "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: " (dictionary.com)
Anything deemed "good" or "bad" will ALWAYS be subject to the biases of the individual. Take for example, one of the strongest examples (by my biases) that demonstrates a disparity in contrary morality.... This is sick, in my mind:
NAMBLA has a motto "Sex before 8, else it's too late" or something to that effect. These are men who strongly believe that sex with innocent children is "good" morally. EVERYONE, I personally knows would STRONGLY disagree... most even calling such behavior "evil."
Ah, but it's objectively not moral. It will almost always result in damage to the child, and the adults 'having sex' with the children do so in spite of that, and go so far as to claim it's a morally white course of action.
Measure up the harm done/averted, as well as those that, err, gain from having sex with kids. It becomes blindingly apparent that it's not moral at all. And I do suspect their claim of it being moral is just some sort of pathetically thin smokescreen to protect themselves.
The point is, morality cannot be objective. Every terrorist who's ever killed (innocent, men women AND children), has done so because it was the "right" thing morally. For morality to be objective, one must be able to sense it by some physical means. Since morality is a purely philosophical endeavor, physical perception of it is not possible.
I beg to differ. Measure up the harm done versus the harm averted, keeping in mind that religion is just barbaric mythology; slaughter and murder, because the book commands it, does not invert the colour of the morally black act.
Facebook
Twitter