OK, what does it mean to be objective? it means that all observers, when fully informed, will agree to the statement. I don't consider most moral statements to be of that type.
I am not so sure about that one. Your describing the lack of bias or prejudice, not objectivity. The definitions I have seen for objective are a fact that is true regardless of what our opinions are concerning it.
Lets say several hundred or several thousand years ago we asked several scientists what the twinkling light we now call Saturn was.
1. Some claimed it was a sun.
2. Some with a little better equipment said it was one sun with two other suns on either side that were either smaller of farther away that the main star.
3. The best scientist of the day said it was a planet with irregular features on either side he called ears.
However the objective fact is that it is a gas giant (planet) surrounded by rings and moons. To be objective is to not be subjective, subject to what, our opinions?
Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an
objective opinion. 6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
Objective | Define Objective at Dictionary.com
No, *moral* socio-biological spinoffs. Morality is *defined* in relation to our biology and our psychology (which is also biological, mind you).
Malum in se (plural mala in
se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.
Malum in se - Wikipedia
There is no roll or relevance concerning biology in the above. On evolution my deciding to kill other humans is just as amoral as whether I walk upright or on all fours. On evolution my deciding to drown a handicapped child is just as amoral as rescuing that same child. Neither correspond to any objective value or duty I have to anyone.
Even kids know this. When you tell them to do that which contradicts their desires the first thing they ask is "oh yeah, who say". IOW if you can't point to an objective truth why should I be bound by your opinion?
No, they are not. Whether they serve the well-being of humans determines whether the acts are moral. People can be deceived about whether something promotes well-being (many medieval medical treatments qualify).
Your merely presuming (actually your merely declaring) that human well-being is the objective criteria for morality. Again this is speciesm, and can only be actualized because we can enforce our own well being upon all other creatures we know of. It is a self serving assumption forced others at the point of a gun which is unrelated to any objective moral values and duties.
Of course it does! To be objective is to have all fully informed sane people agreeing. Part of that is intelligence to use the information to reach valid conclusions.
You really really do not understand what objective means in the context of morality. It has nothing to do with the agreement by any or all of humanity. It has to do with it being true or not regardless of human opinion. What your describing is 100% subjective morality. Multiplying it from one person's opinion to every person's opinion makes it no less an opinion. This is also a perfect example of the fallacy of popularity. Something does not become any more true based on how many people believe it.
Furthermore, our awareness of the mental states of others is part of what makes us a moral species. Most species do not have that capability.
Again this makes nothing objective. It just describes one of the aspects by which you form your subjective ethical preferences.
On the contrary, human well-being *is* the objective standard. It is the theist position that lacks any *objective* standard because it is all based on the whims (or 'nature') of a deity. Because it has little concern for human nature, this actually makes theism immoral in many contexts.
For example, recently there was a case where a little girl was killed because her step-dad thought she was a demon. if he had not been deluded by his superstitions, she would still be alive. I bet even you agree it was immoral for this guy to kill this little girl. But *why*? he *thought* he was doing God's work. And he has ample Biblical justification that 'faith in God' is more important than the well-being of that little girl.
I hate for you to waste all your time arguing from an incorrect premise. I am going to have to get you to understand what "objective" means in a moral context. Instead of my trying to explain it then giving a short citation to back it up let me quote more exhaustively from well credentialed scholars.
This post is so long there would not be room to do this here I will pick a briefer post to really clarify what objective means in the context of morality. To be continued: