A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion

[Cavebear]

I believe it is morally wrong to do many things that I don't think should bind society (a lot of sexual sins, a lot of speech, and many personal choices people make that harm themselves and their families). That's called legislating morality and I am not a fan. There are a number of issues that I'm sure you believe is just an attempt to legislate morality, but really there is a bunch of reasoning behind that makes (often) a good case why it harms society. Take the gender-affirming medical treatments/procedures of minors. Not legislating morality--we believe it harms children (which it certainly does) and parents and schools should not be allowed to do it. I would be glad to explore any issue you like.

You've just highlighted the perfect example of why you won't ever be able to determine this supposed objective morality that you think exists.

Each person's morality stems from their own upbringing, the cultural norms they're exposed to, their own personal lived experiences and their own (often wilful) ignorance.

You fail to realise that everyone has led a different life and because of this will therefore have a different perspective and different moral stance. You also fail to recognise your own ignorance. So you see gender affirming care of trans children as harming them because you are ignorant about why people are trans, what trans health care entails and how it helps trans people. But if you had ever spoken to a trans child, or even a trans adult, then they will tell you that denying them the care they need harms them. And in fact that you're causing them the very harm that you think you're saving them from because of your ignorance.

Are all those thing always wrong, regardless of personal opinion and context? You are stuck. You almost certainly believe they are yet your claim is that all morality is opinion.

Yes it is my own personal opinion, but it certainly isn't everyone's opinion.

White American Christian slave owners used the Bible to justify slavery. They thought they were objectively right. How can you objectively determine that they were wrong?

The same kind of thinking comes into play with colonialism for example, with people arguing that they are bringing civilisation to poorer countries. The inhabitants of those countries will argue how they are being exploited and their wealth stolen from them.

Take the Hamas attack on October 7th for example. Yes I see it as wrong, but I also understand how it is a symptom of a larger wrong. If Palestine hadn't been treated the way it had then there wouldn't have been the means by which people could have been driven to perform such terrible acts. As I said, whether you are a freedom fighter or terrorist is a matter of perspective. Yet again an example of how, by your definition, an objective morality is actually a subjective one.

And this is the point you're failing to grasp. There will always be exceptions, and compromises and differences of opinions. It doesn't matter how we answer your questions because no matter how many you ask in this forum, it is impossible to find a moral stance that everyone in the entire world will share. Therefore you will never be able to reach your objective morality because there will always be someone that disagrees with you.

There can be little justification for the Oct 7 attack where men, women, and children were killed and/or taken hostage, or for the cruelty inflicted on the dead and hostages. Hamas deserves to be destroyed from the top down. completely and forever.

That being said, Israel is no shining example of mercy and tolerance. The whole place is a cauldron of unending hate and violence brought about by religion.

The Jews say they need "some" place to live without the historical discrimination. The Palestinians say "From the River to the Sea". I don't see a solution to that. It is all one of those "religion ruins the world" things. The Jews and Moslems hate each other to death. But so do the Hindus and Moslems and Christians in India. And elsewhere. There is no hope for peace where religious extremists coincide.

The definition of insanity could well be "religions meeting each other" outside a culture based on the rule of law.

[Rhythmcs]

You define the object in objective morality as god.  Could there be a different object?

That is the debate. People have tried very hard to because we all feel intuitively that there are objective moral facts out there. But the fundamental problem is that while it is quite easy to figure out the 'is', it's much harder to account for what we 'ought' to do. What exactly is the nature of the principle that could make a claim on what we should do? If it anywhere near opinion, norms, or cultural context, it is not objective.

That may be a debate that a christian subjectivist wants to have for any number of reasons, but..more accurately, a christian subjectivist having that argument thinks that his morality is the one we ought to follow instead of an objective morality.  A gods opinions, a gods norms, and a gods culture may be a gods, but they are still opinions, norms, and culture.

At the bottom of the well, the faithful often mistake their strong belief that their god is real and really does have opinions or a nature or rules with metaethical objectivity. With realism. However, if it's true that that gods(or any other subject), by their nature(or any other string of words), are the exclusive owners of moral fact then the world really is metaethically subjective - and this too likely adds to the confusion.

[epronovost]

Sections 1-3.
Basically outlines moral naturalism as a type of moral realism and posits that moral facts

And this is the very definition of objective morality. Objective morality is the idea that that moral statement are statement of facts that can be either right or wrong. If you say that naturalism cannot provide a route to objective morality; you are in error since there exist a whole metaethics associated with the idea that moral statement are statement of facts that can be right or wrong. Your statement is thus fundamentally incorrect. There is a route from naturalism to objective morality. Of course the term routes would be more accurate since moral naturalism refers to a cloud of ideas and concepts that share similar principles and philosophical foundations and with a variety of strength and weaknesses and not a single unified and singular route.

Do you understand how your statement in post number 606 is just incorrect. There is a route; you might not like it or favor it, but it exists and is in fact well respected in the sphere of moral philosophy considering it's probably the most commonly espoused form of moral realism. I don't personally subscribe to it since I am not, by and large a moral realist, I am mostly a non-cognitivist. Even If I think that moral naturalism or ethical naturalism as I was introduced to it is incorrect, it's true that it represent a form of objective moral metaethical theory based on naturalism. This is simply a fact.

[TheMetrologist]

Steve is a long term, fundamentally pro-birth, serial denier of women's right to self determination and bodily autonomy. He hides it behind a veneer of civility, but do not be fooled. He's a christo-fascist determined to advance the agenda of the pro-birth American Taliban.

Moral views are already a kind of moral choice. So yes, I understand where you are coming from. You don't agree with him on profoundly significant ethical topics and therefore think him a bad person. You might be right. But consider that, since you hold the opposite view, he likely thinks you are not a great person either... and yet he attempts to refrain from this sort of unhelpful evaluation. Part of living in society (and especially a pluralistic society, if such a thing is possible) is being willing to have conversations with people you think aren't good people. Of course, sometimes these is no hope, but it's perhaps best to err on the side of generosity.

If you take it as a first principle of your moral reasoning that access to abortion and contraception are fundamental women's rights then of course SteveII is an irreparably corrupt bastard. If you want to understand what it would take for SteveII to change his view, think about what it would take to change yours! For starters, I think you'd have to imagine that the world can be understood in a way you've never conceived of and genuinely, imaginatively, walk in that view. And that's pretty hard to do.

[Dānu]

Steve is a long term, fundamentally pro-birth, serial denier of women's right to self determination and bodily autonomy. He hides it behind a veneer of civility, but do not be fooled. He's a christo-fascist determined to advance the agenda of the pro-birth American Taliban.

Moral views are already a kind of moral choice. So yes, I understand where you are coming from. You don't agree with him on profoundly significant ethical topics and therefore think him a bad person. You might be right. But consider that, since you hold the opposite view, he likely thinks you are not a great person either... and yet he attempts to refrain from this sort of unhelpful evaluation. Part of living in society (and especially a pluralistic society, if such a thing is possible) is being willing to have conversations with people you think aren't good people. Of course, sometimes these is no hope, but it's perhaps best to err on the side of generosity.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Steve is a long term, fundamentally pro-birth, serial denier of women's right to self determination and bodily autonomy. He hides it behind a veneer of civility, but do not be fooled. He's a christo-fascist determined to advance the agenda of the pro-birth American Taliban.

Moral views are already a kind of moral choice. So yes, I understand where you are coming from. You don't agree with him on profoundly significant ethical topics and therefore think him a bad person. You might be right. But consider that, since you hold the opposite view, he likely thinks you are not a great person either... and yet he attempts to refrain from this sort of unhelpful evaluation. Part of living in society (and especially a pluralistic society, if such a thing is possible) is being willing to have conversations with people you think aren't good people. Of course, sometimes these is no hope, but it's perhaps best to err on the side of generosity.

If you take it as a first principle of your moral reasoning that access to abortion and contraception are fundamental women's rights then of course SteveII is an irreparably corrupt bastard. If you want to understand what it would take for SteveII to change his view, think about what it would take to change yours! For starters, I think you'd have to imagine that the world can be understood in a way you've never conceived of and genuinely, imaginatively, walk in that view. And that's pretty hard to do.

I've been watching Steve play this game for years and I don't think he's an "irreparably corrupt bastard." Just badly indoctrinated, willfully blind, and happy with both circumstances. I'm sure we'd get along fine at a local sports pub discussing football over beers. I just find his casual disregard toward the personal freedoms of others utterly repugnant. He has stated that he's not on atheist sites to have his views challenged, or because he's open to other ideas, but to hone his "arguments" (such as they are) to use elsewhere. I gave up engaging with him long ago. He's not interested in other points of view, except as they can help him refine his own.

As you your assertion that I don't understand his position, or should consider his position... It used to be my position, though not for gawd reasons like Steve-o. Maybe, before you make assumptions about people's motivations, you should simply ask about them.

[TheMetrologist]

As you your assertion that I don't understand his position, or should consider his position... It used to be my position, though not for gawd reasons like Steve-o. Maybe, before you make assumptions about people's motivations, you should simply ask about them.

Look, fair enough. I don’t know you or Steve’s views except a few things I’ve spent about 10 minutes reading over on this thread. I’m sorry I was unfair to you.

As a new comer here, I can say that all the insults he gets in this thread are unenlightening and not even entertaining.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

As you your assertion that I don't understand his position, or should consider his position... It used to be my position, though not for gawd reasons like Steve-o. Maybe, before you make assumptions about people's motivations, you should simply ask about them.

Look, fair enough. I don’t know you or Steve’s views except a few things I’ve spent about 10 minutes reading over on this thread. I’m sorry I was unfair to you.

As a new comer here, I can say that all the insults he gets in this thread are unenlightening and not even entertaining.

It's all good...

The insults may not be enlightening or entertaining, but over the course of his career on atheist sites, the one thing you cannot say is that they're not earned.

[pattylt]

It’s frustrating when Steve and those like him try to engage in discussions about a topic yet refuse to explain their own. He’s quick to tell us how wrong or misguided we are without divulging his own or deflecting, stating that he wants us to display ours. He won’t even tell us which demonization he’s coming from yet groups all atheists into a single bundle. He likes to use others arguments without stating whose argument it is (sometimes he does…rarely) and when he gets cornered or asked a specific question, he changes the subject or goes on a different tangent. He is polite…I’ll give him that…but he’s frustrating as well.

[Kathryn L]

First, as I have said twice in this thread so far, I know more pro-life women than men and the people staffing the 2700+ crisis pregnancy centers across the nation trying to prevent abortions are mostly women. Second, most pro-life organizations have support for mothers and fathers long after the baby is born. The local crisis pregnancy center we support has postpartum food, clothing, medical assistance, counseling, support groups, group activities, and now no-cost college degree program (with local college) designed especially for single mothers. That sound like more than mere empathy.

Those things are great.  I know several women who volunteer with pregnancy crisis centers.  The problem is, they mostly do it out of a desire to prevent the other choice from occurring.  They want to convince or control these women rather than to help those women make the decision that is best for them, whether that involves abortion or not, so even much of their "help" is conditional on accepting their ideas of the world without considering that maybe God doesn't condemn them or anyone for having an abortion.

I have also pointed this out before: Gallup reports only 55% of women consider themselves pro-choice while 41% (54,000,000 women) consider themselves pro-life.  Where do all of these women fit into your narrative which starts: "I think I'm realizing you can't make them care or empathize with women."  Is that even possible that 41% of women can't empathize with women?

BTW, historically, you are wrong about Christianity and women. All of western civilization owes it's basic worldview (up until 50 years ago) to the influence of Christianity. What other part of the world not influenced by Christianity do women fair better?

Yes, it is possible for women to work against the cause of women's equality.  When groups of women were trying to gain the right to vote, there were groups of women trying to stop them.  When women were trying to enter the workforce, there were women trying to stop them.  When women were trying to gain the ability to get an education or a degree, there were women trying to stop them, usually because they believed it was unGodly for women to have these rights. You can convince women not to work towards the interests of other women acquiring legal or social equality. A lot of those women's rights in western society actually stem from non-Christian groups of thinkers or liberal Christian groups trying to help those who are marginalized in society.

[brewerb]

Apparently France gets it. I wonder if Steve has talked to them?

[Deesse23]

As a new comer here, I can say that all the insults he gets in this thread are unenlightening and not even entertaining.

Most of them are well deserved. He has most of the forum on ignore, because he does not like his falsehoods exposed and his views scrutinized.
Just a few pages back he was marginalizing slavery as a "safety net" for people in antiquity, insulting every single person who ever was enslaved. He denied that the Bible is promoting slavery.
But
He feels he has ethics superior to atheists, and thinks abortion is immoral and should be illegal.

Steve is a liar. First and foremost to himself, then to everybody else.

[Mathilda]

Steve is a long term, fundamentally pro-birth, serial denier of women's right to self determination and bodily autonomy. He hides it behind a veneer of civility, but do not be fooled. He's a christo-fascist determined to advance the agenda of the pro-birth American Taliban.

This.

And he never did reply to my last question of why his subjective morality should supersede everyone elses.

So I shall ask everyone else:

What should society do with christofascists who impose on everybody else through lies their own subjective morality born from religious dogma and deliberate ignorance that deny others their most fundamental human rights?

[Mathilda]

I've been watching Steve play this game for years and I don't think he's an "irreparably corrupt bastard." Just badly indoctrinated, willfully blind, and happy with both circumstances. I'm sure we'd get along fine at a local sports pub discussing football over beers. I just find his casual disregard toward the personal freedoms of others utterly repugnant. He has stated that he's not on atheist sites to have his views challenged, or because he's open to other ideas, but to hone his "arguments" (such as they are) to use elsewhere. I gave up engaging with him long ago. He's not interested in other points of view, except as they can help him refine his own.

Oh totally but pages of word salad aren't going to convince anybody.

This is why all the Christofascists are on Twitter.

[Szuchow]

Steve is a long term, fundamentally pro-birth, serial denier of women's right to self determination and bodily autonomy. He hides it behind a veneer of civility, but do not be fooled. He's a christo-fascist determined to advance the agenda of the pro-birth American Taliban.

This.

And he never did reply to my last question of why his subjective morality should supersede everyone elses.

So I shall ask everyone else:

What should society do with christofascists who impose on everybody else through lies their own subjective morality born from religious dogma and deliberate ignorance that denies others their most fundamental human rights?

Enshrining fundamental rights in constitution like France recently did with abortion seems good first step forward. As for worshippers of space Hitler themselves - one can't reason with them so they should be ridiculed as laughing at them is one of the most despised things among fascists.

[Alan V]

What should society do with christofascists who impose on everybody else through lies ... that den[y] others their most fundamental human rights?

Vote and speak against such people.

What else can we do if they are not reasonable?

[Kathryn L]

Hm, Steve, I'm just curious, what do you think happens to the souls of the children who are aborted?

[Atothetheist]

This sounds like special pleading. Some circumstances affect objectivity (something you have previously claimed is true regardless of circumstance, belief, and context), and somethings don't. Can you clarify further as to why these circumstances don't affect objectivity.

Every moral claim will have relevant circumstances. It is the grounding of your moral claim that will dictate which circumstances are essential and which are not to a determination. Perhaps my answers further below on specific questions will illustrate.

I have mentioned it, I have alluded to it, and I want to clarify something here.  My post above (pasted below) was exploring the conditions in which a moral claim was objective. I don't think an atheist has the necessary grounding to claim access to objective morality. I'll explain.

[previously I wrote] In discussions on ethics, which concern moral claims, 'objective' shifts focus from empirical verification to moral reasoning. Although many moral claims are supported by factual circumstances, the requirement for verification/falsification is not as direct as in the empirical sense of the word. Instead, ethical objectivity relies on moral reasoning—grounded in logical consistency and aimed at uncovering principles that hold true independently of individual opinions or cultural contexts. This process, while necessitating human thought, seeks to identify moral truths that are objective in the sense that they are not contingent upon personal feelings or societal norms.

Note the two italicized phrases. I don't think there is a way for an atheist to distance themselves from "individual opinion" enough to be sure their conclusion are objective because all they have is human opinion if you ask enough 'whys'. To illustrate, we need an uncomplicated example on what seems to be fairly straightforward objective moral claim. Let's take the easiest one from my recent list:

1. Stealing your neighbor's things is objectively wrong.
  - Why? Because it violates their rights and causes them harm.

2. Why are violating rights and causing harm wrong?
  - Because rights are protections and benefits recognized by society to ensure fair treatment and well-being of individuals.

3. Why should society ensure fair treatment and well-being of individuals?
  - Because a society that ensures these things is more likely to be stable, prosperous, and peaceful.

4. Why is a stable, prosperous, and peaceful society desirable?
  - Because these qualities contribute to the flourishing of human life and the minimization of suffering.

5. Why is the flourishing of human life and the minimization of suffering desirable?
  - Because these are conditions under which people can pursue happiness, fulfill their potentials, and live meaningful lives.

6. Why do people need to pursue happiness, fulfill their potentials, and live meaningful lives?
  - Pursuing happiness and fulfilling potentials are seen as essential aspects of human nature and well-being.

7. Why are these aspects seen as essential to human nature and well-being?
  - These aspects are based on our understanding and experiences of what leads to a fulfilling human life, informed by cultural, philosophical, and personal insights.

8. Why should our understanding and experiences dictate what is morally right or wrong?
  - In the absence of an external standard, they form the basis of our moral reasoning, reflecting a collective human effort to navigate life's complexities.

9. But why follow this collective human effort's conclusions on morality?
  - Ultimately, following these conclusions is a choice influenced by personal beliefs, societal norms, and the desire for coherence in our moral framework.

10. Isn't that just basing morality on opinions and societal norms, then?
   - crap

Surely even some of these clarifying circumstances affect objectivity, right? Consent to die (suicide) is wrong (presumably) regardless of the consent given.

Let me ask you a few questions along this point:

Under (your) objective morality:

Is suicide objectively immoral?

If so, is assisted suicide immoral?

If so, has the person who died committed an immoral act, or has the person who directly assisted in the killing (Doctor, etc) committed an immoral act?

Yes, Yes. Both.

My moral claim is that it is wrong to kill is grounded in religion (not from one verse, but from a complete reading of the Bible and the systematizing of several related principles and doctrines). I don't exclude suicide as an exception because I am convinced that such an exception is never mentioned nor an example given in the Bible that we can draw conclusions from as well as not being compatible with the concepts that make killing wrong in the first place (we are made in image of God and have infinite value, sovereignty of God, concepts of the value of hope and endurance as part of what it means to be human, etc.). So as I mentioned at the very start of my reply, my grounding informed me that the underlying medical condition was not a necessary circumstance to apply the moral principle.

Here's a long hypothetical I want you to ponder and give your thoughts on:

Mary, who has recently discovered that she has life-threatening cancer (this cancer is likely genetic), was approached by her boss (a wealthy business tycoon) who gives her an offer: "Mary, I have been developing technology that would allow you to live on past your body. All of my scientific testing confirms that the project will be a success. So, I am approaching you with this offer: If you kill yourself by taking these specific concoction of chemicals, and consent to allowing your brain and consciousness to be uploaded to my project, I will give all the remaining coworkers a 2000% raise, as well as permanent healthcare to all your coworkers and your family for the harrowing experience. Unfortunately, the chemicals you will be ingesting will  cause you pain, but it will only be until you die. You will be brought back into an artificially cloned body that will otherwise be indistinguishable from your normal one." and she after some thought and emotional struggle, Mary consents.

The boss makes a few calls and gets in touch with several Doctors to set up the procedure. The procedure commences exactly according to plan. Assume, that Mary is not a criminal and has committed no act that would otherwise cause one to be given the death penalty.

Was there an obectively immoral act committed?

Who, if any, committed an objectively immoral act?

If no immoral act was committed, what allows you to tell?

If an immoral act (objectively) was committed, what allows you to tell?

How important are the qualifying circumstances as laid out in the example?

Using my answer just above, I would say it is objectively immoral for the same reasons and my grounding informs me that your added circumstances are still not necessary to apply the principle.



Are all human killings automatically considered murder unless extenuating circumstances exist? I don't view it like that.

No, because murder requires curtain circumstances to be present (intent being the main one) as well as a lack of extenuating circumstances. You can't murder someone by accident.

Can you elaborate on your thoughts towards my hypothetical?

[Inkubus]

Recently I've been thinking These:

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p...97#p944797

Are the biggest fools on the planet for engaging this mindless twat:

It's a badger.

The sea serpent in the video doesn't look anything like a badger. A badger has a pointed nose, a totally different head shape, a tongue that's only about 8 centimeters in length and it's body length it not any where close to being as long as the body length of the sea serpent in the video.

A badger doesn't behave the way the full video of this sighting shows the sea serpent in this short video behaves.

Now I'm not so sure.

But hay, at least he posted some evidence to back up his claim



Steve is a fundi Christian right down to the atomic level and no amount of rational argument will change that. So tell me, where are you going with this thread?

[pattylt]

Why are they always blurry?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Why are they always blurry?

Because clear imagery of the imaginary will always remain beyond the capabilities of our technology.

[SteveII]

Sections 1-3.
Basically outlines moral naturalism as a type of moral realism and posits that moral facts

And this is the very definition of objective morality. Objective morality is the idea that that moral statement are statement of facts that can be either right or wrong. If you say that naturalism cannot provide a route to objective morality; you are in error since there exist a whole metaethics associated with the idea that moral statement are statement of facts that can be right or wrong. Your statement is thus fundamentally incorrect. There is a route from naturalism to objective morality. Of course the term routes would be more accurate since moral naturalism refers to a cloud of ideas and concepts that share similar principles and philosophical foundations and with a variety of strength and weaknesses and not a single unified and singular route.

Do you understand how your statement in post number 606 is just incorrect. There is a route; you might not like it or favor it, but it exists and is in fact well respected in the sphere of moral philosophy considering it's probably the most commonly espoused form of moral realism. I don't personally subscribe to it since I am not, by and large a moral realist, I am mostly a non-cognitivist. Even If I think that moral naturalism or ethical naturalism as I was introduced to it is incorrect, it's true that it represent a form of objective moral metaethical theory based on naturalism. This is simply a fact.

I'm not sure you understand. Certainly there is an attempt to provide a naturalistic account of objective morality.

It seems you think that just because a metaethical theory exists, then it can be used to arrive at a particular objective morality that people can accept or reject because different objective moralities can exist. I don't think that is even coherent, but let's leave that aside for a moment because the point and the question being examined in the article that you choose was: can Moral Naturalism make a coherent case.  

It is important to understand that the moral realist eventually has to make claims they have to show are true, coherent, and practicable, (a metaethical view). Here is Moral Naturalist's basic argument:

Premise 1: If moral properties can be identified with natural properties, then objective morality can be grounded in the natural world.
Premise 2: Moral properties can be identified with natural properties through empirical investigation and conceptual analysis (insert your particular metaethical approach here...like Neo-Aristotelian Naturalism, Cornell Realism and Jackson's Analytic Functionalism).
Conclusion: Therefore, objective morality can be grounded in the natural world.

As I have listed in detail in my last post on the article, the three most popular naturalist metaethical views fail because they can't solve the normative problem--how to get from an 'is' to an 'ought'---or as the author puts it: an 'is' and a 'what matters' are entirely different things.

"Moral facts are normative. They concern what is good and what we have reasons or obligations to do [an ought]. Natural facts – the kinds of facts that scientists study – are facts about the innate physical structure of the universe and the causal principles that govern the interaction of matter. Those are obviously just two different kinds of facts; moral facts are normative but natural facts are not. In trying to give a naturalistic account of morality, naturalists forgot the most important thing: that moral facts aren’t purely facts about the way the world is; they are facts about what matters." (section 4.2, first paragraph)

"Having discussed moral naturalism in general terms, we’ll now examine three of the most popular naturalistic metaethical views in detail. As we go, it will be worth keeping the normativity objection in mind. A version of the normativity objection will end up being one of the most pressing objections to all of these views." (section 4.2, last paragraph)

So, it is the case that Premise 2 has serious structural problems not likely to be overcome. I can therefore reject the conclusion and my claim that there is not 'route' to objective morality through Moral Naturalism has been supported.

Here is the strange thing. You don't believe any of those metaethical views either. If you don't believe them, you don't think they have made the case of Premise 2. If they don't make the case for Premise 2, why would you insist that the conclusion is an option?

[Dānu]

We have drifted quite a ways from the morality of abortion.

[Rhythmcs]

If you don't think any morality but your gods morality can succeed, then all of your non religious arguments™ must also fail.

[epronovost]

As I have listed in detail in my last post on the article, the three most popular naturalist metaethical views fail because they can't solve the normative problem--how to get from an 'is' to an 'ought'---or as the author puts it: an 'is' and a 'what matters' are entirely different things.

That would be ignoring the simpler reply to the is-ought problem by the descriptivist school of moral naturalism which is that the is-ought problem doesn't apply to objective based endeavor due to the law of non-contradiction in logic (you can't achieve your objective by doing things that go against your objective). Since the descriptivist school present morality as an objective based endeavor then applying to is-ought problem to morality is thus fallacious itself.

Here is the strange thing. You don't believe any of those metaethical views either. If you don't believe them, you don't think they have made the case of Premise 2. If they don't make the case for Premise 2, why would you insist that the conclusion is an option?

Because you have not provided a definitive proof that you are correct, far from there. You have given a reason, a rather poorly developped one that already has numerous counters in various schools of thought in moral naturalism. I don't believe in those metaethical view because I do not accept the premise of their system; if I did accept their premises then I would have to say that they are correct since moral naturalism is logically and rationally extremely well formulated. I do not claim that my position is the absolute truth; I am not a moral absolutist. It's what I believe and I think I have better reasons to believe what I do than the other options, but I could very well be wrong about the nature of morality. There is a difference between thinking somebody is wrong and somebody being wrong. I can't say that there is no pathway to objective morality because there is; I think those pathway are full of pitfalls and problems to greater degree than my position which is that of a non-cognitivist, but i can't deny the existence of a route. A route doesn't imply a 100% accuracy and a certainty that everything in there is correct and perfect; it implies a reasonable chance to arrive to a certain conclusion.