[b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

[Skepdick]

As you can see Will, all he does is troll and the take a series of dumps on the thread contibuting nothing.

Have no fear Sculptor, I know exactly what Septick is.

I fear you have no clue what anything is.

[Skepdick]

Why do you care why you should care?

I fear you might be a troll.

[Atla]

***
Let us set the record straight on this idiotc question that keeps coming up
"Is moraltiy sujective or objective", " "what would it take?" etc..
The whole problem seem to be a mischaracterisation of what the subject/object argument is all about.
Things are not objective or subjective in and of themselves.
Subjectiity and objectivity refer to a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN two things. Between the percieved and the perceiver.
SO it may not be asked "is morality objective" anymore than "is morality subjective".

Subjective vs objective morality isn't about a relationship between the percieved and the perceiver. "Subjective vs objective" has more than one meaning. You're welcome.

[Sculptor]

***
Let us set the record straight on this idiotc question that keeps coming up
"Is moraltiy sujective or objective", " "what would it take?" etc..
The whole problem seem to be a mischaracterisation of what the subject/object argument is all about.
Things are not objective or subjective in and of themselves.
Subjectiity and objectivity refer to a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN two things. Between the percieved and the perceiver.
SO it may not be asked "is morality objective" anymore than "is morality subjective".

Subjective vs objective morality isn't about a relationship between the percieved and the perceiver. "Subjective vs objective" has more than one meaning. You're welcome.

With respect that is not much of an answer.
WOuld you care to say something

[Skepdick]

With respect that is not much of an answer.
WOuld you care to say something

Can't help the fly out of the bottle if it doesn't want to get out...

The subjective/objective distinction is getting in your way of thinking clearly.

Starting with reality - it contains no such things as "subjects". There are only objects - everything is objective.

Some objects (often refered to as "dumb philosophers") then go onto manufacture the idea of a "subject" - born out of special pleading it is then juxtaposed with objects. This distinction (like all distinctions in philosophy) is a perpetual source of conflict.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Things are not objective or subjective in and of themselves.
Subjectiity and objectivity refer to a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN two things. Between the percieved and the perceiver.

Your view is so empty:

Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.
Scientific objectivity is practicing science while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

Something is subjective if it is dependent on a mind (biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imagination, or conscious experience).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective. The word subjectivity comes from subject in a philosophical sense, meaning an individual who possesses unique conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires,[1][2] or who (consciously) acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object). ibid

Thus, from the above'
Moral objectivity is practicing Morality while intentionally reducing partiality, biases, or external influences.

What is morality but a collection of rules "decided" by society, or through normative association rules that it is claimed ought to be followed for society to work to minimises conflict and aportion rights. SOme moral systems claim to do this equally, others to reserve rights to special groups.

What is morality-proper is not about RULES.
Rules are confined to customs, cultures, traditions, politics [legislature, laws & policing].
The confusion is these rules has moral elements which should be deal within morality proper.

There are loads of moral elements within morality proper.
One of the moral element [MT1] is the 'oughtnot_ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure' which is a very evident pattern of human state which can be investigate by science as a scientific fact which is scientifically objective as defined above [i.e. agreed by a collective not by 'a' subject].

When such an objective scientific fact is inputted into a morality-proper Framework and System [FSERC] it it an objective moral element which has the consensus of a collective of subjects [not 'a' subject].

Therefore morality is objective [so far as qualified to the moral element MT1 above].

The claim that morality is objective will facilitate moral progress, e.g.
avoiding the moral relativists indifference and tolerance to:
Moral Relativists Condone Killing of Babies for Pleasure
viewtopic.php?t=42185