Comment

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what “objective” means.

Objective (adj.)

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

In other words: real, true, or factual

There is such a thing as objective morality, or moral truth.

Inability to determine what that is does not make it any less real.

Sort:hotnew top

creditCrazy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
The problem I see with that definition is that we are asking to judge an opinion without opinions without opinions the opinion doesn’t exist so still no objective morality is still hogwash as it’s still a oxymoron if you see morals with zero judgements then everything is newtral right and wrong doesn’t mean anything how do you measure the morals of slavery without personal feelings you can’t say religion is bad that’s a opinion you can’t say human suffering is bad that’s a opinion you can’t say human prosperity is good that’s a opinion nothing is inherently good or bad as those are opinions without opinions you can only say you are blind as even saying it’s newtral is a opinion granted newtral is a debatable point so even if objective morality exist I’d be the most useless consept ever

source
BluesF@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
So there exists an asbolute moral truth, but we have no way to determine what it is? I’m sure we can agree that morals don’t have a physical form, so in what way does it “exist”?

source