Do you think that beliefs change objective reality? Do you think that just because people believed that 5+5=11 (and not just redefined 11 to mean 10, but they actually believed 11), having 5 objects and then adding 5 would become 11? — SonJnana

No, I don't think beliefs change reality. But I don't think you quite understand that it's not obvious to me, based on what you've said, that mathematics is objectively part of the world. And it certainly is not obvious to me that we somehow "see" mathematics in the sense datum.

Just so I can understand your position even more clear... does your claim of objective morality rely on the assumption that there is teleology, perhaps a god? — SonJnana

No, I don't think so - at least not in the sense of there being a transcendent and all powerful being. Again, my position is that if we agree mathematics is indeed objective, then we also have reason to believe morality is objective, since both are synthetic a priori.

No, I don't think beliefs change reality. But I don't think you quite understand that it's not obvious to me, based on what you've said, that mathematics is objectively part of the world. And it certainly is not obvious to me that we somehow "see" mathematics in the sense datum. — darthbarracuda

If you agree that people changing their beliefs to 5+5=11 in the example I gave doesn't change the fact that it is objectively true that right now if I have 5 objects and I add 5 I would get 10, then you agree that there is some objective math law that doesn't depend whether a person thinks that math law is true or not.

If you agree that a person who believes 5+5=11 saw 5 objects added to 5 more and ended up with 10 should re-evaluate their reasoning based off of that empirical evidence, you agree that the math knowledge we talk about is based off of an actual objective math law. And we know math laws are objective because we see them in reality.

The distinction with that and morality is that it has to first be demonstrated that our concepts of morality are actually based off of an actual objective morality. Or else we can't distinguish whether we are just constructing this idea of an objective morality, or if there actually is an objective morality (independent of one what thinks) and we can prove that.

No, I don't think so - at least not in the sense of there being a transcendent and all powerful being. Again, my position is that if we agree mathematics is indeed objective, then we also have reason to believe morality is objective, since both are synthetic a priori. — darthbarracuda

Thanks for clearing that up. I think I fully understand your position now.

If you agree that a person who believes 5+5=11 saw 5 objects added to 5 more and ended up with 10 should re-evaluate their reasoning based off of that empirical evidence, you agree that the math knowledge we talk about is based off of an actual objective math law. And we know math laws are objective because we see them in reality. — SonJnana

No, once again, mathematics is synthetic a priori. We don't "see" numbers. We don't "see" math. Nowhere in the sense data are you going to find that. Just like nowhere in the sense data are you going to find good and bad, right and wrong. All of this is synthetic a priori. I've emphasized this many times now: mathematics as well as morality are in the realm of reason. Just by reflection can we come to know mathematical truths, and just by reflection can we come to know moral truths.

That's not to say we are always great at doing morality. For a few simple principles or concepts might be easy enough to acknowledge but the right course of action in a specific particular situation is hardly ever self-evident. Probably in many cases we do the wrong thing by sheer ignorance.

I explained that in the post.

Proof for the objectivity of mathematics is this. If someone says 5+5=11, you can show them that they are wrong by demonstrating the objective math law that when you have 5 objects and you add 5 more, you get 10 not 11.

Proof for the objectivity of morality comes from where? Conscience isn't good enough. 5 objects + 5 objects = 10 objects even before humans were around. That's because the math law is objective. However I can't distinguish whether it is objectively morally wrong to murder independently of human thought, or if humans evolved to believe that it is wrong to murder because it's useful. You have to demonstrate that.

My own view is that there is an essential property to an immoral act, and that property is harm. All immoral acts cause harm to the one committing the act, or to the one who is the object of the act, or to both. If there is no harm, there is no immorality. When I say this I'm not saying that every harmful act is an evil, only that all evil or immoral acts cause harm. — Sam26

You only said that it is an essential property, not why it is. With that reasoning I could say that the conventional view of justice is an essential property, and therefore if someone kills your wife you should kill his wife. They both seem subjective. You have to explain why harm is the essential property.

Proof for the objectivity of morality comes from where? Conscience isn't good enough. 5 objects + 5 objects = 10 objects even before humans were around. That's because the math law is objective. However I can't distinguish whether it is objectively morally wrong to murder independently of human thought, or if humans evolved to believe that it is wrong to murder because it's useful. You have to demonstrate that. — SonJnana

Are you not familiar with moral proofs? Moral principles are cognitive and can be manipulated in logic. We can make proofs. The question is whether or not our principles are true, principles like how suffering is bad, and needless harming wrong. But the same is true of mathematics. Again, mathematics could be nominalistic in the same way morality could be subjective. But I'll say that if we see mathematics as real, objectively, then we should also see morality as real, objectively. For it's in the same category of thought. It is now up to the anti-realist to show why, despite the fact that both morality and mathematics are synthetic a priori, mathematics is objective while morality is not.

Why do you not doubt that numbers are real but doubt that suffering is bad? Is it not intuitive that suffering is bad in the same way it is intuitive that 2+3=5?

When we say we have mathematical knowledge, what is it knowledge of? It is knowledge of the objective math law. Whether it's because you discovered it by noticing that when you had 5 objects and you added 5 you ended up with 10, or whether it's because the human brain evolved because it was useful understand the objective math law, or even maybe because you were socially conditioned to think that way. The point is that it is knowledge about an actual objective law that can be demonstrated.

Morality is not that same. You have to demonstrate that it is knowledge of an actual objective morality.

Why do you not doubt that numbers are real but doubt that suffering is bad? Is it not intuitive that suffering is bad in the same way it is intuitive that 2+3=5? — darthbarracuda

No it is not intuitive to me. I don't like suffering and I would like to see less suffering in both me and others because I don't like the way it makes me feel, but it's not intuitive that it's objectively morally wrong. Just because it is uncomfortable to me doesn't make it objectively morally wrong.

Even if it was intuitive, you still have to explain that there is an objective morality that exists outside of human thinking and that it's not a case of there being no objective morality but rather that humans evolved to be predisposed to want to believe that there is an objective morality and made it a human construct because the ones that didn't committed crimes and were killed by society.

Even if it was intuitive, you still have to explain that there is an objective morality that exists outside of human thinking and that it's not a case of there being no objective morality but rather that humans evolved to be predisposed to want to believe that there is an objective morality and made it a human construct because the ones that didn't committed crimes and were killed by society. — SonJnana

The same could be said about mathematics. You keep going in circles, assuming mathematics is objective and empirical.

Just because you disagree with a moral evaluation, or don't see its pull, doesn't mean morality isn't objective. To say morality has to necessarily be recognized by a mind to be objective begs the question. You need to explain why morality cannot be objective, not just state you don't "see" it intuitively. Because clearly you do see some things that are good and bad, right and wrong, or you wouldn't even know what morality is (apart from some empty commands with no content - is this how you really take morality to be?)

Did you read the second paragraph? It explains why it's objective, and gives examples.

The same could be said about mathematics. You keep going in circles, assuming mathematics is objective and empirical. — darthbarracuda

The same can't be said about mathematics because the mathematical knowledge we have is about the actual objective math law which can be demonstrated, while the objective morality hasn't been demonstrated to me.

Because clearly you do see some things that are good and bad, right and wrong, or you wouldn't even know what morality is (apart from some empty commands with no content - is this how you really take morality to be?) — darthbarracuda

I do believe I understand what people mean when they say that something is objectively right or wrong, but that doesn't mean I myself believe that acts are objectively morally right or wrong.

You need to explain why morality cannot be objective, not just state you don't "see" it intuitively. — darthbarracuda

I don't have to explain why it can't be objective because I'm not even asserting that it's non-objective. I thought we cleared my position up a long time ago. You are the one asserting why it is objective and if you can't demonstrate that, then you haven't backed up your claim.

"a case of there being no objective morality but rather that humans evolved to be predisposed to want to believe that there is an objective morality and made it a human construct because the ones that didn't committed crimes and were killed by society. "
^When I said this, I never said that I believe this is true. I'm not the one making claims. But if you assert that there is objective morality, it is up to you to demonstrate that it's not this case.

My own view is that there is an essential property to an immoral act, and that property is harm. All immoral acts cause harm to the one committing the act, or to the one who is the object of the act, or to both. If there is no harm, there is no immorality. When I say this I'm not saying that every harmful act is an evil, only that all evil or immoral acts cause harm.

The second component is that immorality is objective, that is, it's not subjective, or a matter of opinion, or a matter of consensus. For example, if I cut someone's arm off without good reason, there are several factors that make this an immoral act, and moreover, make it an objective immoral act. First, it's objectively true that the arm has been cut off, we can see it on the ground. Second, we can objectively observe the screams of the victim. Third, we can also witness the screams and tears of family and friends. These three reactions show the objective nature of the harm done. No opinion or consensus will or can change the objective nature of these observations. — Sam26

"My own view is that there is an essential property to a moral act, and that property is the conventional view of justice. All moral acts are those that act for justice. If there is no justice, there is no morality. When I say this I'm not saying that every justice act is an morally good one, only that all good or moral acts are for justice.

The second component is that morality is objective, that is, it's not subjective, or a matter of opinion, or a matter of consensus. For example, if I kill someone's wife because he killed mine, there are several factors that make this a moral act, and moreover, make it an objective moral act. First, it's objectively true that the arm has been cut off, we can see it on the ground. Second, we can objectively observe the fact that my wife was dead originally and now I have killed his. These two reactions show the objective nature of the justice done. No opinion or consensus will or can change the objective nature of these observations."

See the problem?

I don't have to explain why it can't be objective because I'm not even asserting that it's non-objective. I thought we cleared my position up a long time ago. You are the one asserting why it is objective and if you can't demonstrate that, then you haven't backed up your claim. — SonJnana

Look, I've already demonstrated to you that morality can come in the form of valid logical syllogisms, and that the premises are what are being doubted here. But I've also shown that mathematics also relies on certain premises. Both mathematics and morality are synthetic a priori. And I've argued that if we see mathematics as objective then, barring any good reasons to the opposite, we should also see morality as objective. It is a point in favor, I think, of morality being real that it has this affinity to logical reasoning. It is rational, and we can form cognitive beliefs about it. More importantly, we can disagree about things as well.

If you do not recognize the concepts right or wrong, good or bad, then there's nothing I can do to convince you. Just as you could never convince someone of the objectivity of mathematics if they failed to grasp mathematical principles. Morality is, as I see it, synthetic a priori and is intuitively grasped in the same way mathematics is. Surely you would not think that a child who does not understand mathematics shows that mathematics is entirely subjective?

So I have provided what I see to be a plausible theory of what morality is. As a response you have merely asserted that morality could be something else entirely. I cannot cover all my bases, I cannot knock down every alternative you present. You need to go on the offensive and explain to me what about my theory is false, or the discussion will end as I will have nothing else to say to convince you.

Look, I've already demonstrated to you that morality can come in the form of valid logical syllogisms, and that the premises are what are being doubted here. But I've also shown that mathematics also relies on certain premises. Both mathematics and morality are synthetic a priori. — darthbarracuda

"When we say we have mathematical knowledge, what is it knowledge of? It is knowledge of the objective math law. Whether it's because you discovered it by noticing that when you had 5 objects and you added 5 you ended up with 10, or whether it's because the human brain evolved because it was useful understand the objective math law, or even maybe because you were socially conditioned to think that way. The point is that it is knowledge about an actual objective law that can be demonstrated."

Like I've said, it doesn't matter how you can get to the knowledge. The point is that mathematical knowledge is knowledge about a math law that actually objectively exists and can be demonstrated. But no, you haven't demonstrated that there is an objective morality rather than human construct.

"Even if it was intuitive, you still have to explain that there is an objective morality that exists outside of human thinking and that it's not a case of there being no objective morality but rather that humans evolved to be predisposed to want to believe that there is an objective morality and made it a human construct because the ones that didn't committed crimes and were killed by society. "

Furthermore, belief in God is intuitively true for many people as they say themselves. Does that make it true? If I see a magician, my brain is programmed to intuitively think that what they do is really happening, but I can use reasoning to realize that it doesn't make much sense.

If you do not recognize the concepts right or wrong, good or bad, then there's nothing I can do to convince you. — darthbarracuda

I do recognize them. I just lack the belief that there is an objective moral standard of right or wrong.

Surely you would not think that a child who does not understand mathematics shows that mathematics is entirely subjective? — darthbarracuda

No I wouldn't because I could demonstrate it with objects and it'd be true independent of whether they think it is an objective law or not. But I can't demonstrate that killing is objectively morally bad independent of whether people think it is true. That's the distinction.

So I have provided what I see to be a plausible theory of what morality is. As a response you have merely asserted that morality could be something else entirely. I cannot cover all my bases, I cannot knock down every alternative you present. You need to go on the offensive and explain to me what about my theory is false. — darthbarracuda

Yes, I've stated that I can't distinguish whether there is an objective morality or a case of there being no objective morality but rather that humans evolved to be predisposed to want to believe that there is an objective morality and made it a human construct because the ones that didn't committed crimes and were killed by society.
All I'm saying is that I can't distinguish which one therefore I lack the belief that there is an objectively morality similarly to how I lack the belief that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar. But like I've said many times, that doesn't mean that I believe that there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar.

How even could I go on the offensive and back up my claims when I'm not making any? It's you making the claim and me seeing if it makes sense or not.

No I wouldn't because I could demonstrate it with objects and it'd be true independent of whether they think it is an objective law or not. But I can't demonstrate that killing is objectively morally bad independent of whether people think it is true. That's the distinction. — SonJnana

Now you're begging the question, though. In what way is demonstrating a mathematical proof different than demonstrating a moral proof?

How even could I go on the offensive and back up my claims when I'm not making any? It's you making the claim and me seeing if it makes sense or not. — SonJnana

Yes, I am making claims and trying to convince you of them. If you disagree you will need to give reasons why you disagree, which is just simply going on the offensive. It's just you saying that there is something wrong with my argument which is preventing you from agreeing with it.

The fact that I think morality is intuitive makes it difficult to show that it is objective to anyone who does not recognize or is not willing to recognize these intuitions. I've tried to make it easier by drawing the similarity between morality and mathematics in that both are synthetic a priori and both are grasped through reason and not empirical observation.

It may be the case that we will never be able to show that morality is objective or subjective. But this is how it is with many metaphysical debates. Oftentimes all we can hope to show is the plausibility, or at least coherence, of a view. In my case, it is particularly difficult for me to argue against moral anti-realism if the other person is reluctant to agree that morality is synthetic a priori and grasped intuitively. The best I can hope to do is to draw an analogy and say that as a child failing to understand mathematics does not disprove mathematics as objective, a person who is unconvinced of the truth of a certain moral claim (such as that murder is wrong) does not show that this claim is false or could not possibly be true.

Ultimately, probably the best I can do is to show that there are no good reasons against moral realism. But then again, that's the case for many things anyway. I don't think I could deductively prove that moral realism is true. I think I can only show it to be coherent and plausible, and that the modern scientific view is not incompatible with it.

It would just mean that the subjective opinions are consistent. Consensus on an opinion or belief doesn't mean that the opinion or belief itself is objectively true. — SonJnana

I may be wrong but how does one test for objectivity of observations?

For me being objective has two parts:
1. We must be logical in our thinking
2. Our observations of the world must be accurate

1 is taught to us and we learn to avoid logical missteps.
2 can only be achieved through consistency over space, time and observers. For instance a lump of sugar tastes good in China and America, in January and in June, to me and you and Mr. X. So objectivity is achieved through consensus in my opinion. I think I'm wrong on this. Can you point out my error. Thanks.

Now you're begging the question, though. In what way is demonstrating a mathematical proof different than demonstrating a moral proof? — darthbarracuda

Anyone can make a logical proof about anything. The question is whether it is sound. The reason for objective law of mathematics being sound is the fact that we can demonstrate it. If you say 5+5=11, I can prove to you that you are wrong by showing you that your knowledge of math is not consistent with the objective math law that is independent of whether or not people think it is true. I know that math law is objective because it can be demonstrated.

Yes, I am making claims and trying to convince you of them. If you disagree you will need to give reasons why you disagree, which is just simply going on the offensive. It's just you saying that there is something wrong with my argument which is preventing you from agreeing with it. — darthbarracuda

Saying what is wrong with your argument which is preventing me from agreeing with it is the same thing as giving reasons why I am disagreeing though. I'm not trying to be an asshole here. I just really want to see if anyone can give an argument for objective morality that makes sense. And if it doesn't make sense I will be honest about why I think that it doesn't.

The fact that I think morality is intuitive makes it difficult to show that it is objective to anyone who does not recognize or is not willing to recognize these intuitions. I've tried to make it easier by drawing the similarity between morality and mathematics in that both are synthetic a priori and both are grasped through reason and not empirical observation. — darthbarracuda

But just because something is intuitive or not doesn't make it true. If a kid doesn't intuitively understand math, that doesn't mean that there is no objective math law. If I intuitively think what I see in a magical illusion is real, that doesn't mean that what I intuitively may think the magician is doing is actually happening.

a person who is unconvinced of the truth of a certain moral claim (such as that murder is wrong) does not show that this claim is false or could not possibly be true. — darthbarracuda

I am not saying it is false or could not be possibly true just like I am not saying that it is false or could not be possibly true that the jar has an even number of gumballs. It may very well be true. It's a lack of belief. If I am ignorant, I won't say that there is an even number of pieces of grass in the world. I really just don't know. I lack the belief that it is even but I'm not saying that it is impossible. I'm saying I don't know. If someone claims to know then I'll ask them how they know. And I'll see if their reasoning makes sense.

I don't think I could deductively prove that moral realism is true. I think I can only show it to be coherent and plausible. — darthbarracuda

It is a very hard think to do. I do not believe that you've shown it to be coherent or plausible to be honest, but I do respect that attempt that you've made thus far. It's made us both think more and that's the best part about this thread.

Anyone can make a logical proof about anything. The question is whether it is sound. The reason for objective law of mathematics being sound is the fact that we can demonstrate it. If you say 5+5=11, I can prove to you that you are wrong by showing you that your knowledge of math is not consistent with the objective math law that is independent of whether or not people think it is true. I know that math law is objective because it can be demonstrated. — SonJnana

Yet Descartes specifically argued that an evil demon could be tricking us into believing 2+2=4.

But just because something is intuitive or not doesn't make it true. If a kid doesn't intuitively understand math, that doesn't mean that there is no objective math law. If I intuitively think what I see in a magical illusion is real, that doesn't mean that what I intuitively may think the magician is doing is actually happening. — SonJnana

Do you understand what I mean when I say "intuitive"? I'm not meaning it like some warm fuzzy feeling or whatever, I'm meaning in the same way we "intuit" mathematical truths. When you're in math class and learning math, you are doing so through the operation of reason. Math isn't science.

It is a very hard think to do. I do not believe that you've shown it to be coherent or plausible to be honest, but I do respect that attempt that you've made thus far. It's made us both think more and that's the best part about this thread. — SonJnana

Yes, indeed. As I said, it is difficult to show that moral realism is true, given how morality must be if it is real. It is not as if I would be able to show something to be incoherent in moral anti-realism and thus affirm realism. The universe would seem to be indifferent whether there are objective morals or not.

What I am aiming to show is that there aren't any good reasons to deny objective morality. Now that doesn't show objective morality exists but it does show that it is not incoherent and is at least something we can plausibly believe in. And, I think perhaps both of us will agree, there being objective morality is superior than there being none. We ought to hope there is objective morality and be disappointed if there isn't.

I may be wrong but how does one test for objectivity of observations?

For me being objective has two parts:
1. We must be logical in our thinking
2. Our observations of the world must be accurate

1 is taught to us and we learn to avoid logical missteps.
2 can only be achieved through consistency over space, time and observers. For instance a lump of sugar tastes good in China and America, in January and in June, to me and you and Mr. X. So objectivity is achieved through consensus in my opinion. I think I'm wrong on this. Can you point out my error. Thanks. — TheMadFool

I think it depends on how you make the statement. For example, if I say that ice cream tastes good, that's an opinion. I could say that it's objectively true that ice cream taste good to me which would be another way of saying that it's objectively true that I like ice cream. Usually that's implied when I say ice cream tastes good. But the statement itself "ice cream taste good", using the word good here is implying that one subjectively likes it.

Haven't really thought about this much, but I guess that's what I can come up with right now.

Yet Descartes specifically argued that an evil demon could be tricking us into believing 2+2=4. — darthbarracuda

Yeah that's true, but there's a difference between absolute knowledge and practical knowledge. I can't claim that I absolutely know there's an apple in my hand so why should I believe it? Because it's practical. If I don't eat anything I might actually die. That can go down a messy road towards solipcism, but this is all assuming practical knowledge. At that point I'd prefer a solipcist to make their own thread because I'm not gonna argue about that here lol.

Do you understand what I mean when I say "intuitive"? I'm not meaning it like some warm fuzzy feeling or whatever, I'm meaning in the same way we "intuit" mathematical truths. When you're in math class and learning math, you are doing so through the operation of reason. Math isn't science. — darthbarracuda

Yeah I understand and I believe the example I gave with the magician and illusion was sufficient for that. I don't think the person's head has been cut off because of a fuzzy emotion, I actually see it with my own eyes. But I can reason that it doesn't make sense. Although when I was younger, I actually did believe magicians were actually doing what I saw.

As I said, it is difficult to show that moral realism is true, given how morality must be if it is real. It is not as if I would be able to show something to be incoherent in moral anti-realism and thus affirm realism — darthbarracuda

Yeah. That's why when originally I was asserting that morality is non-objective, I realized I can't prove that when people responded. And so I changed my position to be one of not claiming that it is objective or non-objective.

What I am aiming to show is that there aren't any good reasons to deny objective morality. Now that doesn't show objective morality exists but it does show that it is not incoherent and is at least something we can plausibly believe in. And, I think perhaps both of us will agree, there being objective morality is superior than there being none. We ought to hope there is objective morality and be disappointed if there isn't. — darthbarracuda

I still don't think it's rational to believe in it just like it wouldn't be rational to believe that there are an even number of gumballs in the jar. But of course it could be true.
And yeah I do hope that there is an objective morality. Who knows how the masses of the world would act if they didn't believe in that there was. Good thing most people believe in God right now at least.

I think it depends on how you make the statement. For example, if I say that ice cream tastes good, that's an opinion. I could say that it's objectively true that ice cream taste good to me which would be another way of saying that it's objectively true that I like ice cream. Usually that's implied when I say ice cream tastes good. But the statement itself "ice cream taste good", using the word good here is implying that one subjectively likes it.

Haven't really thought about this much, but I guess that's what I can come up with right now. — SonJnana

I've realized something. Something is objective if and only if there's observer consistency (across space, time and different observers).

So, an object is said to be objectively 10 kg in mass if and only if many instruments show the reading 10 kg.

If you agree then what follows are the following objective observations:

1. Everyone wants happiness
2. No one wants to suffer

1 and 2 are objective because they meet the definition of objectivity (consistency across observers). What say you?

I've realized something. Something is objective if and only if there's observer consistency (across space, time and different observers). — TheMadFool

I don't agree with those definitions. Objective reality is independent of whether or not there is observer consistency. If there is consistency, you have reason to think that it probably is true. But of course sometimes we can be tricked and wrong. The question then would be how can we claim to know something in terms of practical knowledge of what is likely or not.

1. Everyone wants happiness
2. No one wants to suffer — TheMadFool

Even if this were true, all you could say is that it is objectively true that everyone wants happiness and no one wants to suffer. You can't get an objective morality from this just like you can't say it is objectively true everyone should eat ice cream even it is objectively true that everyone wants ice cream.

Can you explain to me what you see to be the difference between mathematics and morality in terms of objectivity, and why the former is objectively real but the latter perhaps not?

Can you explain to me what you see to be the difference between mathematics and morality in terms of objectivity, and why the former is objectively real but the latter perhaps not? — darthbarracuda

This is all assuming practical knowledge.
Mathematics knowledge is about a math law. We can demonstrate that the math law objectively exists. But I haven't seen objective morality demonstrated to be true.

I don't agree with those definitions. — SonJnana

What is your definition of objectivity? How can one know that he/she is being objective?

You can't get an objective morality from this just like you can't say it is objectively true everyone should eat ice cream even it is objectively true that everyone wants ice cream. — SonJnana

Why not?

1. It is moral to make people happy
2. It is immoral to make people suffer

Mathematics knowledge is about a math law. We can demonstrate that the math law objectively exists. — SonJnana

How do we demonstrate mathematical law, and how is this different to moral law?

What is your definition of objectivity? How can one know that he/she is being objective? — TheMadFool

Objective reality is what is real independent of what one thinks. An example would be a crime scene. If there is no evidence, it might be irrational to believe this person committed the crime. If there is a lot of evidence, it might be more rational to believe this person did it, yet they could also have been framed. If there is overwhelming evidence and it seems unlikely, practically impossible that the person was framed, and on top of that the person also admits to it, then you could probably say that you now, in terms of practical knowledge. But this can go on and on.

The point is that objective reality is independent of what people think. And how can one know that he/she is being objective? One can't absolutely know, but in terms of practical knowledge, one can say they know if something is overwhelmingly rational.

If you aren't using practical knowledge and only value absolute knowledge then you'd be a solipsist and that'd be an argument for another thread. This is all assuming practical knowledge. Everyone is always assuming that, besides solipcists. And that can have it's own thread.

Why not?

1. It is moral to make people happy
2. It is immoral to make people suffer — TheMadFool

Just because everyone want to be, even if that were true, that wouldn't make it objectively morally right to make people happy. Using that same reasoning we could say that it is moral to make people slaves if everyone hypothetically wanted societies with slaves.

How do we demonstrate mathematical law, and how is this different to moral law? — darthbarracuda

We can demonstrate math law by showing that 5 objects + 5 objects = 10 objects. It is rational to believe this is knowledge about an objective math law, in terms of practical knowledge, because math law is applied in our daily lives constantly empirically. The same can not be said about morality.

If you don't think it's rational to believe that 5 objects + 5 objects will equal ten this time, it's probably because your a solipcist and care only about absolute knowledge.

We don't "see" numbers. — darthbarracuda

Of course we do. Well, technically we see amounts, and derive the concept of numbers from those.