Because the terms 'right' or 'wrong' are too loose, I do not prefer to relate them with 'morality'.Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:33 pmIn other words, whether murder is objectively wrong is a matter of opinion, which is an absurd thing to say. It is probably a fact that the vast majority of human beings consider murder to be morally wrong. Why not just leave it at that if we have to bring the word "fact" into the matter? Nothing can ever be morally wrong, it can only be considered to be morally wrong.
No, he is not entitled to feel vindicated, but at least he is not alone in his mistaken position; he has you for company.I think VA can feel vindicated now.
Note the OP question is "What could make morality objective?"
If it is not objective, then it is subjective.
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being. [note 'a' i.e. one, uno].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Note the above "depends on the ethical framework or moral philosophy one subscribes to"
A 'framework' is supported by a "collective of subjects" [hundreds to millions or even billions of humans] not 'a subject', therefore it is 'objective' by definition.
This is where my use of 'Framework and System of Knowledge' FSK [explained in detail] is essential to the discussion.
Reliance upon a FSK is objective [by definition] but there has to be a consideration as to the credibility and reliability of the FSK relied upon.
At present, the best, most credible and reliable FSK is the scientific FSK [despite its weaknesses]. You deny this?
I have asserted my Moral FSK would have near equivalent credibility and reliability to the scientific FSK because the majority of its inputs are scientific facts from the scientific FSK.
Therefore, Morality is objective re my moral FSK.