LuckyR wrote: ↑
May 16th, 2018, 3:14 pm
Look at it a different way. Let's say that I have a crystal ball and I can tell you that the Universe has objective morality. Would you suppose that what the majority of folks here on planet earth consider to be moral, would naturally follow what the Universe has decreed to be moral? If so, what is the difference between objective morality laid down by the Universe as opposed to subjective morality determined by popular consensus, statistically?
(Hopefully this answers Hobbes and CIN, too)
'...statistically..." 17 %? Did I win?
I think you are talking about 3 things, not 2. Subjective morality is whatever I think best. Objective morality is what is actually best. Popular consensus is sometimes an attempt at best, and sometimes a way to pretend what we selfishly want is best.
The difference is that objective morality exists whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. Segregation is wrong. If you perceive some advantage in it for yourself, or somehow think it is right, you haven't thought it through all the way. So, popular consensus allowed it, because so many people had a flawed subjective morality, but did not make it correct. This does not imply that right comes to us from God, only that it is possible for a moral code to be 'right'.
I'm sure you can get it from Socrates better than I could lay it out. If people act immorally, they do it out of ignorance of the fact that moral action is best for themselves, as well as others.
Could we agree that some traffic codes are better than others? Then, there could be a 'best' traffic code, though we might not know it yet. Some moral codes are also better than others, so a best code could be out there. If we were not so flawed, we would be able to see it and act on it. But, our imperfection does not mean that the ideal is not out there, waiting to be found.