Sorry the delay - real life getting in the way for a bit. Not ignoring or forgetting you. Will be back

My answer would be much as Terrapin's above. The incrediblely minute exceptions are what we're talking about from a meta-ethical position. And they're important because at one time, people who thought women should be allowed to vote were the incrediblely minute exception. — Isaac

Not all moral judgement are the same, and I am not saying that there is a morally objective answer to every question. Woman voting and torturing babies are not equal.

So even if you bring it down to the very basic values (by which I mean values that are not derived inductively from other more basic ones), I see no factor in the world which would prevent some brains from developing some particular base value. — Isaac

and yet again - a non-answer - how many 10 in 7.6 billion ? 1 % (that's 76 Million by the way) a tenth of 1% ??

so tell me the pragmatic difference between 99 % of the people in the world would have the same moral judgement and there is a near objective truth about that judgement ??

so tell me the pragmatic difference between 99 % of the people in the world would have the same moral judgement and there is a near objective truth about that judgement ?? — Rank Amateur

Simple, I already outlined this. It's simply not a way I recognise of using the term in a consistent manner. If one lived on an island full (for some reason) of psychopaths, all of whom felt that killing randomly was OK. If you were the only one who didn't and were unaware of the rest of the world, would that make it moral to kill randomly?

We can come up with any number of these examples, some, unfortunately are actually played out in communities in the real world. See the discussion I've been having with VagabondSpectre about FGM.

The idea that popularity is what defines actions as moral, just does not capture the way we actually feel about it. I don't have to check how popular my personal opposition to torture is before deciding whether to torture someone. I already feel it is wrong and would continue to do so even if the entire world disagreed.

A proposition is subjective if its truth value is is dependent on personal feelings, tastes or opinions (i.e. existing in someone's mind rather than the external world)

A proposition is objective if it's truth value is independent of the person uttering it.

In other words if it's subjective it reflects how people feel rather than any mind independent reality. This was essentially what the OP and the ensuing exchanges have been about. — ChrisH

Thanks for the definitions - and like I said label it as you wish, is there some pragmatic difference between 99% of the world having the same moral view about some action and a high degree of moral objectivity about that action ?

At one time 99% of the world judged that the sun went around the earth which was the centre of the universe. Did that make their judgment true?

At any rate, there's no moral stance that I can't imagine someone sincerely having. I wouldn't be able to guess how common any stance would be, but I don't think that's relevant to anything. That irrelevance was just my point immediately above. — Terrapin Station

More tactic - very tiring - Of course you can guess, we all can guess - just asking for your honest guess. And, at least to me it would be a relevant point if 99% of the world held the same moral judgement on some specific issue. That would require some explanation.

At one time 99% of the world judged that the sun went around the earth which was the centre of the universe. Did that make their judgment true? — Isaac

you do realize that point supports objective truth don't you ?

if 99% of the world held the same moral judgement on some specific issue. That would require some explanation. — Rank Amateur

But you don't mean some explanation do you? You've been given some explanation - evolution. You're waiting for a particular type of explanation. One involving God.

you do realize that point supports objective truth don't you ? — Rank Amateur

Yes, of course. Whatever gave you the impression that I was opposed to the entire concept of objective truth?

is there some pragmatic difference between 99% of the world having the same moral view about some action and a high degree of moral objectivity about that action ? — Rank Amateur

The question makes no sense. Either a moral proposition is objectively true (true independent of anybody's "moral view") or it's not. The phrase "high degree of moral objectivity" makes no sense.

But you don't mean some explanation do you? You've been given some explanation - evolution. You're waiting for a particular type of explanation. One involving God — Isaac

no - i am happy with human nature, evolution, take your pick -

But if you don't see that there are probably a few moral questions that 99% of the people in the world, if they honestly answered what their conscience said, would have the same moral view is not an argument against there are some things that are for all practical purposes objectively wrong - then you are wed to proposition in conflict with that - sounds like religion to me.

is there some pragmatic difference between 99% of the world having the same moral view about some action and a high degree of moral objectivity about that action ?
— Rank Amateur

The question makes no sense. Either a moral proposition is objectively true (true independent of anybody's "moral view") or it's not. The phrase "high degree of moral objectivity" makes no sense — ChrisH

if you don't think it would matter to the subjective vs objective argument if 99% of the people in the world held the same moral view - You are right there is no need to keep chatting -

But if you don't see that there are probably a few {questions about the solar system} that 99% of the people in the world, if they honestly answered what their conscience said, would have the same {view that the sun revolves around the earth} is not an argument against {the earth revolves around the sun} - then you are wed to proposition in conflict with that - sounds like religion to me.

I'm not seeing the difference, yet you would not argue that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth.

Physical facts about the universe are not matters of conscience, they are matters of reason. There is a difference. Your conscience does not tell you there is a cat on the chair, your reason does. Your conscience tell you it would be wrong to torture the cat for fun.

But I am happy to go down a road where you think there are absolute moral truths, no matter what we think about them - but that is not where you want to go.

if you don't think it would matter to the subjective vs objective argument if 99% of the people in the world held the same moral view - You are right there is no need to keep chatting - — Rank Amateur

What do you mean by "same moral view". All you've established is acceptance here that a large majority of people will have similar moral views about one specific issue - 'child torture'. There are very many contentious moral issues facing us today which are far less clear cut and in my view it would be profoundly unhelpful for either side of these disputes to claim objective truth for their views.

What do you mean by "same moral view". All you've established is acceptance here that a large majority of people will have similar moral views about one specific issue - 'child torture'. There are very many contentious moral issues facing us today which are far less clear cut and in my view it would be profoundly unhelpful for either side of these disputes to claim objective truth for their views — ChrisH

No where did I say all moral judgments are objective - only some, and maybe only a handful.

And I repeat that if as i think. and it think you would, agree 99% of the people in the world could hold the same moral view on a handful of moral judgments, and that has no bearing on if morality is always relative or not - I would have to respectfully disagree

Of course you can guess, we all can guess - just asking for your honest guess. — Rank Amateur

Why would you assume I'm not giving you my honest guess?

And, at least to me it would be a relevant point if 99% of the world held the same moral judgement on some specific issue. — Rank Amateur

Relevant to what? (Other than itself)

is there some pragmatic difference between 99% of the world having the same moral view about some action and a high degree of moral objectivity about that action ? — Rank Amateur

Yes, of course. The pragmatic difference is that the two are two completely different things. Agreement, commonality has nothing whatsoever to do with objectivity.

Why would you assume I'm not giving you my honest guess? — Terrapin Station

well, the

I wouldn't be able to guess how common any stance would be, — Terrapin Station

was kind of a big clue

Relevant to what? (Other than itself) — Terrapin Station

if you don't think that if 99% of the people in the world could hold the same moral view and it not be relative to a discussion of relative - vs objective morality - we will just have to disagree

No where did I say all moral judgments are objective - only some, and maybe only a handful. — Rank Amateur

Yes and I attempted to explain to you that the notion that only some moral judgements are objective (and others may not be) makes no sense.

Yes, of course. The pragmatic difference is that the two are two completely different things. Agreement, commonality has nothing whatsoever to do with objectivity. — Terrapin Station

just some amazing coincidence that on some issues, there is probably a near uniformity of all human conscience judgement. Just a tail on the bell curve of moral judgments.

was kind of a big clue — Rank Amateur

How is that a big clue? The two things don't have anything to do with each other. How in the world would I know just how common some relatively unusual stance might be? That has no impact on being able to guess that there might be some people with that stance.

if you don't think that if 99% of the people in the world could hold the same moral view and it not be relative to a discussion of relative - vs objective morality - we will just have to disagree — Rank Amateur

How would it have anything to do with "relative vs objective morality" unless you were doing what I noted before that you objective to--my pet peeve, re the apparent assumption that it goes without saying that the popularity of something has some significance for its normative merit.

Yes and I attempted to explain to you that the notion that only some moral judgements are objective (and others may not be) makes no sense. — ChrisH

I must have missed the explanation of this - can you follow up that statement with an explanation

was kind of a big clue
— Rank Amateur

How is that not a big clue? The two things don't have anything to do with each other. How in the world would I know just how common some relatively unusual stance might be? That has no impact on being able to guess that there might be some people with that stance.

if you don't think that if 99% of the people in the world could hold the same moral view and it not be relative to a discussion of relative - vs objective morality - we will just have to disagree
— Rank Amateur

How would it have anything to do with "relative vs objective morality" unless you were doing what I noted before that you objective to--my pet peeve, re the apparent assumption that it goes without saying that the popularity of something has some significance for its normative merit. — Terrapin Station

now you are just wasting time just repeating back the same point - and making declarations without support or reason.

going down this whole line of reason with you, and has turned into, is you guys are right and i am all wrong because morality is relative because you all say so. Not one of you has directly addressed the issue. It is all tactic and repeat - like , i think we have reached a point of diminished returns on this line of reason -

good news is i might have another one

You could try just telling me what the percentage of people with some stance has to do with relative/subjective vs objective morality in your view.

The objective standard is the duty to do no harm (arising from the instinctive avoidance of pain and the finding of oneself in a cooperative society where people depend on others for wants, needs, and survival). Whether an act or non-act is morally right or wrong is determined by this standard and this standard alone. Many acts are approved of or disapproved of according to personal sentiments, but if they don’t relate to the objective standard I just outlined, then they are not moral concerns (which some call moral relativity and others call amorality).

The objective standard is the duty to do no harm (arising from the instinctive avoidance of pain and the finding of oneself in a cooperative society where people depend on others for wants, needs, and survival). — Noah Te Stroete

How do you go from the instinctive avoidance of pain (which I don't actually agree is a fact as anything that simple, but we can ignore that for now) and the cooperative society fact to "one has a duty to do not harm"? That would need to be supported.

Lets talk about the concepts of Good and Bad, or right and wrong.

You all believe that all moral judgments in one degree or another are relative. But due to the fact they are moral judgments they involve making some qualitative statement about their nature they have to be good or bad, right or wrong.

Are we ok so far with this so far ?

I don't quite understand the way you worded that, but if you're just saying that moral judgments are judgments that interpersonal behavior (that one considers more significant than etiquette) is morally good bad, right or wrong, etc., that's fine, yes.

How do you go from the instinctive avoidance of pain (which I don't actually agree is a fact as anything that simple, but we can ignore that for now) and the cooperative society fact to "one has a duty to do not harm"? That would need to be supported. — Terrapin Station

I outlined an argument for this several pages ago. I also described how morality works in a cooperative society. It was an exchange with S.

You could try just telling me what the percentage of people with some stance has to do with relative/subjective vs objective morality in your view. — Terrapin Station

I have, a few times, in a few forms. but once again- other than in a smoke filled dorm room - near unanimity of a particular view would clearly cause a problem with a view they all reached that conclusion independently and it was just an amazing coincidence -