The debate "Practically morality is objective" was started by
June 19, 2020, 7:56 pm.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Harmony posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
posted the first argument on this debate as an agreeing part.
Harmony, diecinueve, Abeah and 9 visitors agree.
Cdawgthree and 3 visitors disagree.
The only barrier to objective morality is an objective proof for well-being as the ultimate meausure to judge our actions. After that, well-being, as a physical function of the human brain, can be measured objectively to determine how good or bad actions are.
So, in principle well-being is not objective because it relies on a subject valuing well-being above other things, but if well-being is the ultimate measure, we can make objective statements about actions.
Practically speaking, all accepted moral standards and frameworks are ultimately based on well-being. Therefore, in a practical sense, well-being is an axiom of morality. Just as health outcomes are an assumed measure to grade good or bad medicine, or sets are an assumed axiom in mathematics, well-being is also an unprovable axiom in morality. It's just hidden beneath many abstract layers so the axiomatic link is less intuitive.