So, within the context of the universe, I think our existence, moralities, and happiness, make absolutely no difference, whatsoever. But in the context of our own lives, they make a very considerable difference indeed. And morality, when stripped to its essential detail, basically involves the questions: 'what must I do to be saved?' And, 'what must I do to be happy?' My contention would be that our happiness depends on our moralities, not to mention our prospects for an after-life, should there be one.bluegreenearth wrote:Within the context of human well-being, your reasoning seems to work. However, I anticipate someone might ask why it is objectively good for humans to flourish in the context of the entire universe. In other words, what difference does it make to the universe if humans flourish or not? In that sense, a single best moral code would still be subjective despite its objective consequences being most favorable for humanity because the preference for humanity to flourish is only objective from the perspective of humanity. I don't necessarily have a problem with this concept of morality because I am a human but wouldn't agree that it is universally objective.2ndRateMind wrote: I think so. But I will readily admit that moral codes have subtle ontologies, and there is scope for disagreement with my position.
The reason I think that is this; some moral codes are indubitably better than others, in that their consequences are better for all concerned. And if that is so, it implies that there is some moral code that is best of all, in that it's consequences for all concerned are best of all, even if humanity has yet to discover what it is. Whatever; if there is a best of all moral codes, it must be an objective moral code, objectively the best. And all the inferior moral codes are inferior because they involve, to varying degrees, subjective opinion.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Best wishes, 2RM