LogFAQs > #973806464

The_Apologist posted...
That's not what 'objective' means ('objective' means 'mind-independent'). But I'm proposing that if something presents itself a certain way in our experience, and if the way it presents itself isn't up to us, then this is (provisional, inconclusive) evidence that the thing is independent of our minds.

This is what it means for something to seem objective to us. "Reality is what you stumble over in the dark" and all that. This, or something similar, is the most straightforward reason for thinking that the physical world exists independently of our perception of it.

Okay.

I also use a definition resembling 'mind-independent', with the base postulates that the universe exists independent of our minds and objective reality enters our perceptions, rather than the other way around.

Something wholly generated by our minds would necessarily be precluded from being objective, except possibly in a manner that is descriptive of objective reality.

I would take issue with the idea that we do not choose our morality. We do not always choose our morality, but at times we do, whether consciously or unconsciously. Morality is crafted, by us and those around us. It is built, deconstructed, rebuilt, weakened, reinforced, reworked and destroyed every moment of our lives. It is an emergent function of society, collectively formed from the individuals who make up that society. Moral shifts over time, in both societies and individuals speak to this.

So, to go back to my first post, with added clarity:

For something to be objective it would have an evident existence independent of the human mind, or describe such.

Since morality does not evidence or describe any objective reality, it cannot be objective.

Hence, morality is not objective.

Note that this conclusion is primarily driven by practical application.
If a world of objectivity or subjectivity is practically indistinguishable from the other, the question is effectively moot.

Sic Semper Philosophy!

*bang*