Is Morality Objective?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Unless you are willing to follow the premise of realism, that objects exist independent of the mind.

Morality fails this test. Why is this even in a discussion about morality?

The absurdist position is actually premature, since infants and children do not identify any meaning and value. On the contrary, identifying moral values and adhering to them are widely considered to be the most mature stage of personal development.

The Absurd only arises after one has realized that man's intrinsic need for the search for meaning is incompatible with the cold hard truth. It is true that someone who does not realize this cannot be an absurdist, that just means they're unprepared for the Absurd, it makes it premature for them to consider absurdism.

What is absurd is some people thinking everything is absurd.  Just because absurdity exists doesn't mean meaning doesn't.

It also doesn't mean that meaning is more real than absurdity. Meaning, too, is a subjective filter we humans apply to our own actions.

It seems to me that there's plenty of folks here think that if something is a human abstraction, it isn't really real. But a thing can both be real, and be right or wrong.

This is why using our brains is important. If morality was truly objective, why doesn't the body have a sensor to detect it? Either it isn't objective, or it isn't important enough for evolution to address.

The Absurd gives us laughter. It also kills folks. It is amoral.

I hold that "meaning" and "morality" are overlays we apply to the vicissitudes of life in order to process the absurd randomness that is life. They're too often deployed in hindsight. It's possible, and in my opinion preferable, to apply those sorts of principles ahead of time, but let's face it: humans too often pursue the visceral response and only later work to fit those actions into the frameworks of meaning and morality.