This is an excellent point, and one where I simply see it from a different light. I don't consider the descriptive version of objectivity to actually be objective.
Why wouldn't the descriptive version be objective? To go back to the gravity example, the theory of gravity is our description of how physical objects behave in our universe. But it's only a description of something we observe, it's not as though there is something out there watching over the physical objects and making sure they follow the law that this something has prescribed. It seems to me that being descriptive is a necessary condition for any set of laws to be objective. Maybe I misunderstood you?
If the moral code is Dependant upon an independent set of variables (even if predictable) such as the set of societal interactions that are at play at that time, the moral code becomes subjective.
I am not sure I understand here either. It seems like you are saying that because the moral code changes based on societal conditions, it can't be objective. If that's what you mean, I don't think that follows. It could just be that our understanding of morality grows as we evolve. It certainly does seem like humanity does improve morally as time goes on. Very few people think that human sacrifice is good. Although, in my view, there is a ton of room for progress, even in the most developed societies. It also could be the case that when two societies disagree, one of them is just wrong (or both of them). It also could be the case that the one of the variables in morality is circumstance. For instance, my mental state is determined by activity in my brain and changes in my environment, but that doesn't make mental states subjective, it just means that the environment is a variable (to ward off a possible objection, when I say mental state, I mean the sum total of physical activity in my brain, not my perception of that activity, which would be subjective).
Now, just because morality is subjective, that doesn't mean there aren't moral codes that are better at sustaining a society than others.
That's true. I am not concerned with sustaining society though (at least not in the context of this discussion). Morality is helpful for sustaining and advancing society, but if that is all that is, I am still stuck with the idea that I really have no right to criticize other countries for the brutality or human rights violations that take place. I can say that that's not very socially advantageous, but I can't say they are doing anything really "wrong." This is what bothers me about subjective morality. But that doesn't mean that I won't accept it if it is true. Most of the time I do believe that morality is subjective, but every once in a while I hear an interesting argument that makes me reconsider.
This is true, and if you wish this to be called "objective morality", than so be it. But the fact that there can be multiple "steady states" which can support a society suggests to me that the practical aspect of morality is subjective.
Only if we assume that sustaining society is the objective (goal) of morality. And even then, there could just be different models that get the job done, but some could still be better. For example, the geocentric model of the universe was capable of predicting the orbits of the planets and location of the stars decently, it's just that the heliocentric model did a better job, was simpler and could explain more observations.
logic and reason. If you can't make a logical arguement why your action is acceptable to society, perhaps you should reconsider that action. Same thing for the other person.
What if someone said that punching their friend in the face is a good thing, and the pain, bruising and anger that result are all good. There's nothing illogical or unreasonable about that if you accept the premise that those things are good. I am sure you don't accept that, but since good and bad are subjective, how can you say he is wrong? At best you can say that you think he's wrong.
I don't think subjective morality is superior to objective morality. I merely think that objective morality is an illusion.
Definitely a strong possibility.
The mere existence of multiple highly contradictory claims of objective morality supports this.
It doesn't though. Some or all of those making the claim could be wrong.
So does recent fMRI studies, which demonstrates that people use the same mental centers in their brain to think of "god's" morality and their own.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full.pdf
I don't think that study says anything about objective morality. It just shows that god is an idea that exists in people's heads, and that they use that idea to justify what they already think. Not a very surprising result, but it did provide me with a nice chuckle when it came out.
