Yep. I mean, the moral reality of things aren’t, that’s still there and the rest of the world sees it clearly (mostly), but of course without strict limits (“thou shalt not kill” is a solid one), that people truly believe in (no empire and people who support believes in it, they make money out of forever wars, murder and pillage), perhaps through the belief in God as the rule maker (so, very objective, as categorical as it can be), these societies can only conceive morality as relative, ideologically. Their hearts might initially tell them A but without guidelines in your brain you’re more likely to forgo virtue (because, what’s right or wrong, right? If I can do it and I like it, why not?), and once you accept one you can more easily accept the others. So, yeah, that’s the whole problem!
Without this objectivity, these strict guidelines that one can build upon but are fundamentally undeniable (because God put them in place, for example), you leave it to yourself, the supreme subjective, to make the rules. Unless you’re Solomon or someone like him, that’s just asking for trouble.
So when you say “I believe in objective morality”, you mean that you believe morality should be objective, not that it is objective. I’m inclined to agree because that would certainly simplify life a lot, but unfortunately, you can’t just make morality objective any more than you can make gravity not exist. It is what it is, and we have to figure out a way to work with what we have.
So morality is relative in a society that doesn’t have a proper moral framework?
Yep. I mean, the moral reality of things aren’t, that’s still there and the rest of the world sees it clearly (mostly), but of course without strict limits (“thou shalt not kill” is a solid one), that people truly believe in (no empire and people who support believes in it, they make money out of forever wars, murder and pillage), perhaps through the belief in God as the rule maker (so, very objective, as categorical as it can be), these societies can only conceive morality as relative, ideologically. Their hearts might initially tell them A but without guidelines in your brain you’re more likely to forgo virtue (because, what’s right or wrong, right? If I can do it and I like it, why not?), and once you accept one you can more easily accept the others. So, yeah, that’s the whole problem!
Without this objectivity, these strict guidelines that one can build upon but are fundamentally undeniable (because God put them in place, for example), you leave it to yourself, the supreme subjective, to make the rules. Unless you’re Solomon or someone like him, that’s just asking for trouble.
So when you say “I believe in objective morality”, you mean that you believe morality should be objective, not that it is objective. I’m inclined to agree because that would certainly simplify life a lot, but unfortunately, you can’t just make morality objective any more than you can make gravity not exist. It is what it is, and we have to figure out a way to work with what we have.
No, I believe that it is and it should be understood that way. But yes, I’m glad we at least see eye to eye in how it would simplify life, haha. 👍