quotingThe real world effective difference between objective and subjective morality may be negligible.
nevent1q…kchm
If morality were to be considered objective, everyone still forms their own interpretations of the official objective morality by using their own unique intuitive dispositions.
If morality were to be considered subjective, each person still thinks their moral code is superior to other codes or lack thereof and ought to at least in part be applied universally.
Kevin's Bacon on Nostr: True! and another reason to use BOTH moral arguments and consequentialist arguments ...
True! and another reason to use BOTH moral arguments and consequentialist arguments to spread liberty. Also one may explore how Natural Law can be understood as either: the ethics that nature objectively tends toward, the ethics that nature requires for good x to be protected (life or prosperity), or the ethics that are a real objective thing in nature, even if only conceptually bootstrapped and arrived at by reason. Natural Law can be an appeal to all stances and there is no conflict inherent between these views of their own.