tudal

Nowhere357 wrote, And what I (and others) are saying is that there's no support to show that morality, in the so-called "objective" sense, is more involved. So what if all humans have some intrinsic morals. From this it doesn't follow that breaking those morals (eg, kill, rape, etc.) is wrong, in the objective sense of the word.

Nowhere357

Consider a small child in serious danger. Now consider your favorite ice cream. If these two situations invoke similar feelings in your experience, then I can't help you - I guess your morality really is just a convenient opinion.

Myself, I see and feel a huge undeniable difference. I could not care less whether it's objective or subjective - the compulsion to help the child is very real.

Notice that morality involves the individual's awareness of his relation to society and the world. I would say that provides sufficient objective basis for morality, since society and the world actually do exist.

tudal

Like you, I feel a difference. Almost all people do. Right. So you are compelled to help the child. I'm not following you here. A potential criminal knows that murdering someone would harm the society and that he'd be punished by society. Being aware of this, he murders anyway and is put to death by society. What makes his actions inherently (objectively, whatever) wrong?

Nowhere357

Harmful to individuals/society/world, I would say. Note that no action in and of itself is right or wrong - the intentions and circumstances must be considered. Moral awareness definitely is subjective or relative. But I think it has an objective basis, as well. Please don't accuse me of contradiction, I already have a headache.

meritocrat

How does a murderer 'harm society'?

So in the context of a murder (in your opinion) the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of this murder depends on the circumstances of it?

Nowhere357

Loss of taxpayers.

Yes, of course. Is it wrong to kill someone in order to stop a nuke from vaporizing a city?

tudal

Why do you think it has an objective basis?

Nowhere357

Notice that morality involves the individual's awareness of his relation to society and the world. I would say that provides sufficient objective basis for morality, since society and the world actually do exist.

Perhaps morality is an instinctual awareness which evolved through natural selection. Perhaps it's a transcendant awareness of group mind. Whatever it is, it definitely affects our behavior.

tudal

You said this before, and I still don't see your reasoning here. Can you expound on this, please? Right. We know it affects our behavior, but from this fact we can't conclude that a moral such as "killing is wrong" is objective.

Nowhere357

Morality is a concept. Concepts are objective if they refer to physical reality. Morality refers to our relation with individuals, society, the world. Thus, morality refers to the physical world, and so has an objective basis.

No action is inherently right or wrong. Intentions and circumstances must be considered. There is no such thing as an objective moral in that sense, because intentions and circumstances are open to subjective analysis. This does not preclude that morality may have an objective basis.