The real world effective difference between objective and subjective morality may be negligible.
If morality were to be considered objective, everyone still forms their own interpretations of the official objective morality by using their own unique intuitive dispositions.
If morality were to be considered subjective, each person still thinks their moral code is superior to other codes or lack thereof and ought to at least in part be applied universally.
Yeah it's really just a choice of how to frame it, with no consistent distinction being uniquely identified by that one thing.
A philosophy, for the same reason, cannot be judged by only a single assertion. It has to have a defined relationship to other assertions or objects to have any meaning.
True! and another reason to use BOTH moral arguments and consequentialist arguments to spread liberty. Also one may explore how Natural Law can be understood as either: the ethics that nature objectively tends toward, the ethics that nature requires for good x to be protected (life or prosperity), or the ethics that are a real objective thing in nature, even if only conceptually bootstrapped and arrived at by reason. Natural Law can be an appeal to all stances and there is no conflict inherent between these views of their own.
If morality is objective, then that means that most differences people have with morality would be wrong. Or all could be wrong, but most could not be right.
They may be wrong objectively but how would anyone know that they are holding the wrong or right objective belief other than using their interpretation and intuition?
I think you’re on to the right idea. Truth is what corresponds to reality. Anything else is fantasy. If God exists, then it makes sense that morality comes from him. Intuition may be accurate but it can also be corrupted. Therefore it is unreliable for determining truth.
If intuition was always accurate, everyone would be incredibly rich. But others intuition makes them make bad decisions a lot. For instance, no one would say that an addict’s intuition is correct.
Oh ok.
I agree that truth should correspond to reality.
I also agree that intuition can be flawed and unreliable, my point is just that that's how it seems we work for better or for worse.
Do you think it's possible to not include intuition from moral reasoning?
I think a concrete example could help before things start getting too abstract:
How would one objectively evaluate the moral truth of sacrificing an innocent life for another without using intuition?
I'm curious about your perspective.
