Is Morality Objective?

[EvieTheAvocado]

No, because science references reality in checking for veracity. Science references objective reality as a corrective measure. Surely you know that already. It's kind of built into the method, you know.

We only know objective reality through our perceptions, whether we're talking mathematics, logic, morality, science or anything else within reality ... right?

Get back to me when you can get morality to do that. That is, after all what we're discussing. Morality has nothing to do with mathematics, logic, or science. Claiming it has the same rigor is silly. Morality doesn't reference objective reality as a corrective.

All objective measurements ultimately come down to axioms, as you've conceded.

Science doesn't even need to postulate that objective reality exists (although it obviously makes sense that it does) in order to do sense. It just needs to assume that reality is consistent enough, whether it's objective or not, that continuing to test things empirically will be just as reliable now as it was in the past.

Ultimately all objectivity is known through subjectivity.

Science is objective in practice, and not just in principle. I'm not arguing that morality can be objective in practice ... I'm only arguing that it can be objective in principle.

Although considering the fact that needless suffering is bad ... I think we already know in practice that it's, for example, damaging to the brain to hit someone over the head with a sledgehammer. We may not know the exact details of which situations cause more or less suffering or happiness ... but there are plenty of situations that we already know to be ruled out to be obviously bad or obviously good.

And I literally don't see the difference between saying "That will cause that person to suffer needlessly" and saying "That will cause that person to suffer needlessly ... which would be a bad thing." When we speak of something being morally bad or good, we are already talking about whether it helps or harms the person or persons in question. To speak of something that causes harm and doesn't lead to anything better in the long run is already to speak of something bad. If I say "That would cause needless suffering" then that statement is identical in meaning to me saying "We ought not to allow that because it would cause needless suffering." I think that all prescriptive statements are ultimately descriptive in nature. When we say "That should not be done" we are saying "That would cause too much harm or deprive people of too much life."