objective morality

[fromderinside]

No one can give an objective definition of communism because so many people disagree on the definition. The same is true for the definition of individual and value.

The idea of objective morality is to construct something that goes beyond the individual, something that is constructed from both agreement among individuals and from correspondence to generally accepted principles and understood knowledge.

One generally finds such now in scientific law, specifically physical scientific law (theory). Connecting what a group of individuals can agree upon and attaching that through operations to natural (scientific) law (theory) is one approach some like Bridgman http://talkfreethought.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=1257 took in the twenties. I've used this approach since the '60s in both psychophysics, psychophysical, and psychological scale development. The situation seems no different here. If I can construct an engineering ideal and connect that with such as hearing, sight, taste, feel, and odor sensitivity, perception, and cognition, one should be able to construct similar to Global Operator Management Systems for objective processes with reality.

 

[Bronzeage]

No one can give an objective definition of communism because so many people disagree on the definition. The same is true for the definition of individual and value.

The idea of objective morality is to construct something that goes beyond the individual, something that is constructed from both agreement among individuals and from correspondence to generally accepted principles and understood knowledge.

One generally finds such now in scientific law, specifically physical scientific law (theory). Connecting what a group of individuals can agree upon and attaching that through operations to natural (scientific) law (theory) is one approach some like Bridgman http://talkfreethought.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=1257 took in the twenties. I've used this approach since the '60s in both psychophysics, psychophysical, and psychological scale development. The situation seems no different here. If I can construct an engineering ideal and connect that with such as hearing, sight, taste, feel, and odor sensitivity, perception, and cognition, one should be able to construct similar to Global Operator Management Systems for objective processes with reality.

It's great to consider an idea of objective morality, but how does one consider something that can only be conceived of in its non existence?

Is there any act so horrible that worse horrible consequences for failing to perform the act, cannot be imagined? Every moral precept, such as "Thou shall not kill," is followed by a long list of exceptions. Thou shall not kill except in defense of self and others. Now we turn to the very subjective discussion of "self defense." My neighbor just bought a gun and we have never gotten along very well. It is morally acceptable to kill him now or wait until his gun is pointed at my head?

The real reason we talk about objective morality as if it exists, is because we want it to exist. We take so much comfort in our subjective morality, it seems a little more would be great. My neighbor may have purchased a gun, but I trust our common code of conduct to restrain him. Our mutual offenses have not reached the point of a moral breech, so we are safe for the moment. An objective moral code would help us feel safe from the rest of the world.

There is no engineering ideal. Engineering is the art of the sufficient, plus a factor of safety. The first compromise between risk and safety, or between cost and standards, and the objective is lost.

 

[fromderinside]

The idea of objective morality is to construct something that goes beyond the individual, something that is constructed from both agreement among individuals and from correspondence to generally accepted principles and understood knowledge.

One generally finds such now in scientific law, specifically physical scientific law (theory). Connecting what a group of individuals can agree upon and attaching that through operations to natural (scientific) law (theory) is one approach some like Bridgman http://talkfreethought.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=1257 took in the twenties. I've used this approach since the '60s in both psychophysics, psychophysical, and psychological scale development. The situation seems no different here. If I can construct an engineering ideal and connect that with such as hearing, sight, taste, feel, and odor sensitivity, perception, and cognition, one should be able to construct similar to Global Operator Management Systems for objective processes with reality.

It's great to consider an idea of objective morality, but how does one consider something that can only be conceived of in its non existence?

Is there any act so horrible that worse horrible consequences for failing to perform the act, cannot be imagined? Every moral precept, such as "Thou shall not kill," is followed by a long list of exceptions. Thou shall not kill except in defense of self and others. Now we turn to the very subjective discussion of "self defense." My neighbor just bought a gun and we have never gotten along very well. It is morally acceptable to kill him now or wait until his gun is pointed at my head?

The real reason we talk about objective morality as if it exists, is because we want it to exist. We take so much comfort in our subjective morality, it seems a little more would be great. My neighbor may have purchased a gun, but I trust our common code of conduct to restrain him. Our mutual offenses have not reached the point of a moral breech, so we are safe for the moment. An objective moral code would help us feel safe from the rest of the world.

There is no engineering ideal. Engineering is the art of the sufficient, plus a factor of safety. The first compromise between risk and safety, or between cost and standards, and the objective is lost.

first, uh, let me clean up- my reference to operationalism. Its actually: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ Then let me illustrate with this article an engineering ideal  Filtering problem (stochastic processes)

Now with respect to your position versus that of mine. I am taking an empirical operational approach to the construct objective reality whereas you are taking extant views with all their warts. Naturally yours is an honorable approach that leaves you within the context of history which you admit with your statement

It's great to consider an idea of objective morality, but how does one consider something that can only be conceived of in its non existence?

I reject failed history and offer another way to view objective reality that actually respects what is meant by objective. Mine is only an offering of a way out of the conundrum you recognize.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's great to consider an idea of objective morality, but how does one consider something that can only be conceived of in its non existence?

Is there any act so horrible that worse horrible consequences for failing to perform the act, cannot be imagined? Every moral precept, such as "Thou shall not kill," is followed by a long list of exceptions. Thou shall not kill except in defense of self and others. Now we turn to the very subjective discussion of "self defense." My neighbor just bought a gun and we have never gotten along very well. It is morally acceptable to kill him now or wait until his gun is pointed at my head?

The real reason we talk about objective morality as if it exists, is because we want it to exist. We take so much comfort in our subjective morality, it seems a little more would be great. My neighbor may have purchased a gun, but I trust our common code of conduct to restrain him. Our mutual offenses have not reached the point of a moral breech, so we are safe for the moment. An objective moral code would help us feel safe from the rest of the world.

There is no engineering ideal. Engineering is the art of the sufficient, plus a factor of safety. The first compromise between risk and safety, or between cost and standards, and the objective is lost.

first, uh, let me clean up- my reference to operationalism. Its actually: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ Then let me illustrate with this article an engineering ideal  Filtering problem (stochastic processes)

Now with respect to your position versus that of mine. I am taking an empirical operational approach to the construct objective reality whereas you are taking extant views with all their warts. Naturally yours is an honorable approach that leaves you within the context of history which you admit with your statement

It's great to consider an idea of objective morality, but how does one consider something that can only be conceived of in its non existence?

I reject failed history and offer another way to view objective reality that actually respects what is meant by objective. Mine is only an offering of a way out of the conundrum you recognize.

What is "failed history"? Is there some standard by which history is judged for success?

When one party claims something does not exist, only one example of the thing is needed to refute the claim. If objective morality exists in reality, I want to see this thing. A proposed objective morality would be nice, as well, but we have plenty of those.

 

[fromderinside]

When one party claims something does not exist, only one example of the thing is needed to refute the claim. If objective morality exists in reality, I want to see this thing.

Those on the side against the death penalty on the rounds it isn't supported as a deterrent to crime have a morally objective position. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf

It is generally agreed that the data which now exist show nocorrelation between the existence of capital punishment and lower rates of
capital crime.

Next.

Oh, the above is an example of failed history of expectation on the side of those who favor capital punishment as a deterrent to crime.

 

[Bronzeage]

Those on the side against the death penalty on the rounds it isn't supported as a deterrent to crime have a morally objective position. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf

It is generally agreed that the data which now exist show nocorrelation between the existence of capital punishment and lower rates of
capital crime.

Next.

Oh, the above is an example of failed history of expectation.

And some say with certainty that an executed killer is deterred from killing again. Others say capital punishment is fitting revenge upon a killer, without regard to whether it deters others. Of course, there is no way to measure murders which did not occur because someone feared capital punishment. The non-deterrent argument is used mostly by people who oppose capital punishment. Whether capital punishment is something the state should sanction is a purely subjective argument. There is nothing objective about it.

 

[fromderinside]

Those on the side against the death penalty on the rounds it isn't supported as a deterrent to crime have a morally objective position. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf



Next.

Oh, the above is an example of failed history of expectation.

And some say with certainty that an executed killer is deterred from killing again. Others say capital punishment is fitting revenge upon a killer, without regard to whether it deters others. Of course, there is no way to measure murders which did not occur because someone feared capital punishment. The non-deterrent argument is used mostly by people who oppose capital punishment. Whether capital punishment is something the state should sanction is a purely subjective argument. There is nothing objective about it.

I agree there is nothing objective about what you just wrote. A couple what ifs and other rationales is no argument against whether capital punishment is a deterrent to murder in society. Taking out a murderer only takes out a murderer. It does not deter other murders from taking place. In fact there is some evidence that others are inspired by the execution to commit murder (Philadelphia).

My point is objective data works as a basis for forming moral code if it is applied. Emotion and just so not so much.

 

[Bronzeage]

And some say with certainty that an executed killer is deterred from killing again. Others say capital punishment is fitting revenge upon a killer, without regard to whether it deters others. Of course, there is no way to measure murders which did not occur because someone feared capital punishment. The non-deterrent argument is used mostly by people who oppose capital punishment. Whether capital punishment is something the state should sanction is a purely subjective argument. There is nothing objective about it.

I agree there is nothing objective about what you just wrote. A couple what ifs and other rationales is no argument against whether capital punishment is a deterrent to murder in society. Taking out a murderer only takes out a murderer. It does not deter other murders from taking place. In fact there is some evidence that others are inspired by the execution to commit murder (Philadelphia).

My point is objective data works as a basis for forming moral code if it is applied. Emotion and just so not so much.

If deterrence is the only argument in favor of capital punishment, then you could argue it is irrational to continue it. However, it is not the only argument. To insist it is irrational because it fails your test is not a valid argument.

 

[fromderinside]

If deterrence is the only argument in favor of capital punishment, then you could argue it is irrational to continue it. However, it is not the only argument. To insist it is irrational because it fails your test is not a valid argument.

Again. More fish in the water. I do argue it irrational to continue capital punishment on the basis of deterrence. You put more fish into the water. When you identify fish I shall find evidence, if possible, discrediting each of those fish. Should I fail to find evidence for ending capital punishment the evidence I do find will be objective evidence for capital punishment. Either way I'll be demonstrating the power of objective analysis in the field of morality.

I have found an instance where objective reality supports a position of morality. Not only is my test a valid argument you, by buying in with new fish, provide a basis for me to illustrate a method for obtaining objective morality of a construct.

 

[Bronzeage]

If deterrence is the only argument in favor of capital punishment, then you could argue it is irrational to continue it. However, it is not the only argument. To insist it is irrational because it fails your test is not a valid argument.

Again. More fish in the water. I do argue it irrational to continue capital punishment on the basis of deterrence. You put more fish into the water. When you identify fish I shall find evidence, if possible, discrediting each of those fish. Should I fail to find evidence for ending capital punishment the evidence I do find will be objective evidence for capital punishment. Either way I'll be demonstrating the power of objective analysis in the field of morality.

I have found an instance where objective reality supports a position of morality. Not only is my test a valid argument you, by buying in with new fish, provide a basis for me to illustrate a method for obtaining objective morality of a construct.

If you create the rules of your own game, you will always be a winner. You say capital punishment does not deter murder, so it should be stopped. That is sufficient for you, but not everyone in the world. You might try to address why capital punishment as a form of vengeance is wrong, instead of arguing for a premise which is conceded, but does not yield the conclusion you prefer.

What you have found is a very small subset of human on human violence and made it subject to your personal feelings about killing other humans. You make your rules and want others to follow them.

Is it wrong for a human to kill another human? What does objective morality say about this?

 

[fromderinside]

Again. More fish in the water. I do argue it irrational to continue capital punishment on the basis of deterrence. You put more fish into the water. When you identify fish I shall find evidence, if possible, discrediting each of those fish. Should I fail to find evidence for ending capital punishment the evidence I do find will be objective evidence for capital punishment. Either way I'll be demonstrating the power of objective analysis in the field of morality.

I have found an instance where objective reality supports a position of morality. Not only is my test a valid argument you, by buying in with new fish, provide a basis for me to illustrate a method for obtaining objective morality of a construct.

If you create the rules of your own game, you will always be a winner. You say capital punishment does not deter murder, so it should be stopped. That is sufficient for you, but not everyone in the world. You might try to address why capital punishment as a form of vengeance is wrong, instead of arguing for a premise which is conceded, but does not yield the conclusion you prefer.

What you have found is a very small subset of human on human violence and made it subject to your personal feelings about killing other humans. You make your rules and want others to follow them.

Is it wrong for a human to kill another human? What does objective morality say about this?

I think Pinker has something to say along those lines in  The Better Angels of Our Nature where he recites evidence that as human social systems expanded and became more inclusive violence has dramatically decreased. Obviously, if morality is to have any meaning in modern society, it has to include tenets supporting reduced violence if it is to mimic reality. The argument is much larger than violence, it includes the real threat of punishment, expanding acceptance circles, and minimization of the notion of other in its mix. All of these are part of why violence has decreased supported by Pinker's exhaustive data searches. Therefore to reflect reality an objective morality would have to conform to dictates supporting these objectives.

In this example I'm taking objective morality to reflect objective reality. Things are much easier when morality reflects what is ongoing.

As to whether I'm referring to feelings in what I say the above seems to pretty clearly suggest otherwise.

 

[Bronzeage]

If you create the rules of your own game, you will always be a winner. You say capital punishment does not deter murder, so it should be stopped. That is sufficient for you, but not everyone in the world. You might try to address why capital punishment as a form of vengeance is wrong, instead of arguing for a premise which is conceded, but does not yield the conclusion you prefer.

What you have found is a very small subset of human on human violence and made it subject to your personal feelings about killing other humans. You make your rules and want others to follow them.

Is it wrong for a human to kill another human? What does objective morality say about this?

I think Pinker has something to say along those lines in  The Better Angels of Our Nature where he recites evidence that as human social systems expanded and became more inclusive violence has dramatically decreased. Obviously, if morality is to have any meaning in modern society, it has to include tenets supporting reduced violence if it is to mimic reality. The argument is much larger than violence, it includes the real threat of punishment, expanding acceptance circles, and minimization of the notion of other in its mix. All of these are part of why violence has decreased supported by Pinker's exhaustive data searches. Therefore to reflect reality an objective morality would have to conform to dictates supporting these objectives.

In this example I'm taking objective morality to reflect objective reality. Things are much easier when morality reflects what is ongoing.

As to whether I'm referring to feelings in what I say the above seems to pretty clearly suggest otherwise.

Please stop using the term "objective reality" and using it as a synonym for "objective morality", if that is not what you intend to mean.

It is expected to find violence decreases when groups combine, because morally sanctioned violence is allowed against other groups. When two groups combine, this is one less group one is permitted to rob and kill. It's not because large groups are more moral. It's only because more people are included in the group.

One important by-product of mergers is the effect on socially sanctioned murder within the group. When is it permitted to kill a neighbor or family member. In most enlightened societies, this may be done only to protect life, such as self defense or defense of others. There are some places where a woman caught in the act of adultery may be stoned to death by her family. If this family moved to most 1st world countries, this would not be permitted.

On the other hand, most 1st world countries allow abortions to be performed without penalty. There are various arguments which redefine life to exclude masses of cells which will become to resemble a human family member, given enough time, but however it is justified, it is still a sanctioned murder within the group.

 

[Underseer]

Zeage, it's sanctioned murder dependent upon a very strange definition of "human," a definition even the Bible itself does not agree with.

 

[Bronzeage]

Zeage, it's sanctioned murder dependent upon a very strange definition of "human," a definition even the Bible itself does not agree with.

All definitions of human are strange, mostly because the main reason we need a definition is to exclude someone from the species. At various points in our late history, we have created special classes of "subhumans", which allowed us to inflict special horrors upon them, without the usual guilt associated with massacres.

Morality is like an insurance policy. It doesn't really matter what the fine print in the policy says, what matters is whether you are covered by the policy.

 

[fromderinside]

I use objective reality in the context of the scientific knowledge base elements of which form at least one axis of any evaluated result. I suggest objective morality be understood in context of objective reality.

With the onset of group combining came increases in population probably due to a larger portion of grouped populations having leisure time for discovering improvements for freeing up more available time to persons in the society. With that came increases in population previously unseen in human history.

With the advent of nation states and laws came strong enforcement which constrained opportunities for killing substantially. For instance knives were removed from common carry following the Elizabethan era removing access to a weapon whenever some got a bit of temper going.

Now with the feminization of cultures well under way sanctions against violence are much stronger.

All murders were counted by Pinker counted except abortions since most abortions are just clusters of cells. Stoning has been a part of western culture since before the old Egyptian empire. Abortions in older times were much more prevalent and much more brutal, including murder and feeding to other predators, than they are even in the most liberal of modern states so saying abortion is a factor is a nonstarter. Even without abortions more successful societies have reduced their birth rates while at the same time increasing longevity.

Are you really arguing that such material data, even well designed research, are of no use in matters of morality? If so, I won't bother you any more.

 

[Bronzeage]

I use objective reality in the context of the scientific knowledge base elements of which form at least one axis of any evaluated result. I suggest objective morality be understood in context of objective reality.

With the onset of group combining came increases in population probably due to a larger portion of grouped populations having leisure time for discovering improvements for freeing up more available time to persons in the society. With that came increases in population previously unseen in human history.

With the advent of nation states and laws came strong enforcement which constrained opportunities for killing substantially. For instance knives were removed from common carry following the Elizabethan era removing access to a weapon whenever some got a bit of temper going.

Now with the feminization of cultures well under way sanctions against violence are much stronger.

All murders were counted by Pinker counted except abortions since most abortions are just clusters of cells. Stoning has been a part of western culture since before the old Egyptian empire. Abortions in older times were much more prevalent and much more brutal, including murder and feeding to other predators, than they are even in the most liberal of modern states so saying abortion is a factor is a nonstarter. Even without abortions more successful societies have reduced their birth rates while at the same time increasing longevity.

Are you really arguing that such material data, even well designed research, are of no use in matters of morality? If so, I won't bother you any more.

You really don't understand morality or the function of moral codes in society. Feminization of cultures is the reason sanctions against violence are stronger?

 

[fromderinside]

I use objective reality in the context of the scientific knowledge base elements of which form at least one axis of any evaluated result. I suggest objective morality be understood in context of objective reality.

With the onset of group combining came increases in population probably due to a larger portion of grouped populations having leisure time for discovering improvements for freeing up more available time to persons in the society. With that came increases in population previously unseen in human history.

With the advent of nation states and laws came strong enforcement which constrained opportunities for killing substantially. For instance knives were removed from common carry following the Elizabethan era removing access to a weapon whenever some got a bit of temper going.

Now with the feminization of cultures well under way sanctions against violence are much stronger.

All murders were counted by Pinker counted except abortions since most abortions are just clusters of cells. Stoning has been a part of western culture since before the old Egyptian empire. Abortions in older times were much more prevalent and much more brutal, including murder and feeding to other predators, than they are even in the most liberal of modern states so saying abortion is a factor is a nonstarter. Even without abortions more successful societies have reduced their birth rates while at the same time increasing longevity.

Are you really arguing that such material data, even well designed research, are of no use in matters of morality? If so, I won't bother you any more.

You really don't understand morality or the function of moral codes in society. Feminization of cultures is the reason sanctions against violence are stronger?

I did live in the south, at nearly the same latitude as you do now, for six years. There, in Tallahassee, Chief Hamlin in the fall of 1972 refused to arrest a driver driving up on the sidewalk and hitting students sitting on the curb because the students deserved being run down by him since those student protesters were immorally protesting arrests for student streaking. Is that the morality you're talking about? If so I agree I don't understand morality or the function of moral codes in society. Just in case there is any doubt the legal codes in Tallahassee declare that drivers of a car driving up onto the curb and or sidewalk that runs down pedestrians is at fault.

Clearly the role of women is increasing in society and violence is receding with that increase in women's power. One can go about this fact following the role of testosterone and estrogen, or, one can notice that inclusiveness is increasing in cultures notwithstanding counter movements to recover male rights through such as religious insurrections, or, can measure the estrogenization of lands around human habitation due to pesticide, medical, and fertilizer uses that include estrogen, or, something else.

Obviously Church, Society Construction, and nature of Leviathan, can also be said to drive individual needs for setting and changing rules on limits to social interaction.

I clearly come down on the side of historical drivers extracted from data as the main determinant of moral codes. I do so because all the social system categories are after the fact whilst changes in behavior leave traces that can be read by history. I find it wrong to justify codes in terms of social structure since the structure drives the codes rather than the behavior of believers coming into the structure. That makes me a moral relativist since I find guidance for codes in behaviors in groups rather names and ossified structures or any belief that human morality is fixed.

So I go with changes in demands on human behavior due to conditions which includes both testosterone to estrogen changes and social demands resulting from more inclusiveness. If this makes me one who doesn't understand the function of morality in society to you then I guess we need let our discussion rest since I'm certainly not convincing you, nor, are you me.

Yes because persons live within powerful Leviathans where rules now exist protecting women from men which, in itself by increasing sanctions for violent behavior by men, reduces violence.

 

[Bronzeage]

You really don't understand morality or the function of moral codes in society. Feminization of cultures is the reason sanctions against violence are stronger?

I did live in the south, at nearly the same latitude as you do now, for six years. There, in Tallahassee, Chief Hamlin in the fall of 1972 refused to arrest a driver driving up on the sidewalk and hitting students sitting on the curb because the students deserved being run down by him since those student protesters were immorally protesting arrests for student streaking. Is that the morality you're talking about? If so I agree I don't understand morality or the function of moral codes in society. Just in case there is any doubt the legal codes in Tallahassee declare that drivers of a car driving up onto the curb and or sidewalk that runs down pedestrians is at fault.

Clearly the role of women is increasing in society and violence is receding with that increase in women's power. One can go about this fact following the role of testosterone and estrogen, or, one can notice that inclusiveness is increasing in cultures notwithstanding counter movements to recover male rights through such as religious insurrections, or, can measure the estrogenization of lands around human habitation due to pesticide, medical, and fertilizer uses that include estrogen, or, something else.

Obviously Church, Society Construction, and nature of Leviathan, can also be said to drive individual needs for setting and changing rules on limits to social interaction.

I clearly come down on the side of historical drivers extracted from data as the main determinant of moral codes. I do so because all the social system categories are after the fact whilst changes in behavior leave traces that can be read by history. I find it wrong to justify codes in terms of social structure since the structure drives the codes rather than the behavior of believers coming into the structure. That makes me a moral relativist since I find guidance for codes in behaviors in groups rather names and ossified structures or any belief that human morality is fixed.

So I go with changes in demands on human behavior due to conditions which includes both testosterone to estrogen changes and social demands resulting from more inclusiveness. If this makes me one who doesn't understand the function of morality in society to you then I guess we need let our discussion rest since I'm certainly not convincing you, nor, are you me.

Yes because persons live within powerful Leviathans where rules now exist protecting women from men which, in itself by increasing sanctions for violent behavior by men, reduces violence.

What does any of this have to do with the discussion, except expand on your previous statements of irrelevant facts?

 

[fromderinside]

Zeage, it's sanctioned murder dependent upon a very strange definition of "human," a definition even the Bible itself does not agree with.

All definitions of human are strange, mostly because the main reason we need a definition is to exclude someone from the species. At various points in our late history, we have created special classes of "subhumans", which allowed us to inflict special horrors upon them, without the usual guilt associated with massacres.

Morality is like an insurance policy. It doesn't really matter what the fine print in the policy says, what matters is whether you are covered by the policy.

I should have read this one earlier. It makes things much clearer. We agree on the the function of morality. I suspect the reason you don't see that I agree is that I get into the nuts and bolts of the clear fact that morality offers rationale for exclusion for some reason or the other.

I've taken the task of illustrating that we are entering into a more objective period in which human judgement of right and wrong. I've emphasized that morality is ever so slowly coming more in line with empirical materialism tracing effects of social circumstances. This is the way I've attacked the question about objective morality. It is definitely possible to use what you might call 'objective' technique since it is clearly happening that we are becoming more inclusive over time.

Yes please, if you choose to answer, wave off my reasoning in a line or two since it seems to make you feel good doing so. I am nothing if not one who wants to see happy people in our group.

 

[Bronzeage]

All definitions of human are strange, mostly because the main reason we need a definition is to exclude someone from the species. At various points in our late history, we have created special classes of "subhumans", which allowed us to inflict special horrors upon them, without the usual guilt associated with massacres.

Morality is like an insurance policy. It doesn't really matter what the fine print in the policy says, what matters is whether you are covered by the policy.

I should have read this one earlier. It makes things much clearer. We agree on the the function of morality. I suspect the reason you don't see that I agree is that I get into the nuts and bolts of the clear fact that morality offers rationale for exclusion for some reason or the other.

I've taken the task of illustrating that we are entering into a more objective period in which human judgement of right and wrong. I've emphasized that morality is ever so slowly coming more in line with empirical materialism tracing effects of social circumstances. This is the way I've attacked the question about objective morality. It is definitely possible to use what you might call 'objective' technique since it is clearly happening that we are becoming more inclusive over time.

Yes please, if you choose to answer, wave off my reasoning in a line or two since it seems to make you feel good doing so. I am nothing if not one who wants to see happy people in our group.

I wave off your reasoning with a single line when you do not address the actual discussion.

I don't know why you think we are entering into a more objective period of judgment of right and wrong. If anything, we are becoming more subjective in our reasoning. Whether something is right or wrong depends upon the situation and circumstances. It always has and it always will. Right now, the US military is bombing a bunch of guys in Syria because we don't like them. They haven't actually attacked the US, so the military is not defending the US. By this point, we have probably killed several thousand men and uncounted civilians, including children. This is all morally acceptable. If you can fit this into an objective standard of whether it is right or wrong to kill, I would like to hear it.