↪ChatteringMonkey
I think I can agree to this. There are certainly some objective parts to the process of developing morals, I won't deny that.
— ChatteringMonkey

It's more a principle of non-arbitrariness; the definition of objective you are using is the more common usage of the word, not the way it is used in most of the philosophy I've read, which is "independent of the mind". — ToothyMaw

No I can see how I wasn't exactly clear there.

So I think moral arguments come in the form of

"If 'we' value X, 'then' Y moral/rule follows"

Value X is not subjective, nor objective... but intersubjective. You might say that is arbitrary, but I think it's the only thing we have, absent God. And since the differences in what people value isn't that big either, I don't think this is as big of a problem as people make it out to be (relativism!).

What is objective is the 'then' in the moral argument. This is basically a causal relation, certain moral rules will be better at attaining certain values than others, and this could in principle be measured.

What is also objective about morality is 'enforcing' the rule, once you have established the rule. It's objectively true that one has followed or broken a rule.

Edit: And yes I use it as independent of mind too.

Are you saying that since culture provides a system of values that abide by reasoning of some sort, cultural values are not arbitrary? — ToothyMaw

Yes, in part, culture is an ongoing dialogue where language and reason (but also rhetoric) is used to come to certain values... but ultimately there will have to be some non-rational instincts or desires feeding into that. There no way around that I don't think.

"If 'we' value X, 'then' Y moral/rule follows" — ChatteringMonkey

This reminds me a lot of the consensus view of morality I came up with. And I see what you mean about intersubjectivity; it is pretty much all we have absent revelation.

What is objective is the 'then' in the moral argument. This is basically a causal relation, certain moral rules will be better at attaining certain values than others, and this could in principle be measured. — ChatteringMonkey

The "then" really is objective. I also agree that certain rules would be better or worse at achieving desired outcomes, and that this could indeed be measured.

What is also objective about morality is 'enforcing' the rule, once you have established the rule. It's objectively true that once has follow or broken a rule. — ChatteringMonkey

I also think that the rule, once codified, is absolute, and that it is also a fact if one has broken it or followed it. I suppose that it would be objective; whether or not it has been broken or followed is an observable fact. And breaking the rule would be objectively wrong. So there is some room for justice.

Overall I couldn't agree more. I get the feeling you either read my consensus morality post or just happen to have an interest in almost exactly the same stuff as me. But I don't really care I guess; a good discussion is a good discussion.

If people bring their values to a vote and the plurality votes in such a way as to create rules for humanity that can be measured and lead to desired outcomes, then what obligates the rest to follow along is that the enforcement of the rule is objective and the rule itself is absolute; not only is there justice but there is such a thing as objective wrongdoing.

Overall I couldn't agree more. I get the feeling you either read my consensus morality post or just happen to have an interest in almost exactly the same stuff as me. But I don't really care I guess; a good discussion is a good discussion. — ToothyMaw

I didn't read it, I puzzled this view together over the years from a lot different sources I guess. I do have a persistent interest in this, I guess that is fueled by a certain discomfort about the current state of post-theistic confusion about morality in western societies.

And yes, it is surprising that someone actually somewhat agrees with it :-). Usually I get a lot of flak from people with more objective views on morality. It was a good discussion, thanks for that.

Sure, see ya around!