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?
I think the next point explains my argument better.
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.
Now here is why i think the application of morality is subjective.
1.) Morality is the behavior an individual in a society should or shouldn't do.
2.) these behavior laws will be shaped by those which work best for that species, from an evolutionary perspective.
3.) While there are some general convergence trends, not all social animals develop the same set of behavioral laws.
It is for this last point that I believe morality to be subjective. After all, if it wasn't, why would so many different community systems be observed in the animal kingdom?
It certainly does seem like humanity does improve morally as time goes on. Very few people think that human sacrifice is good.
Improve in what way?
And your second statement isn't completely true. If the human sacrifice was to save others, than people quite often are willing to do so. think about the debates on torture and on the train track scenario.
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.
If you can't argue for your morality from a logical frame work, and must resort to "Because it's wrong", than you need to reconsider the principles upon which your morality is based. Yes, even with subjective morality, you can judge other societies as being "wrong". empathy and rationality provide all the tools one needs to do so. Subjective doesn't mean "anything goes". In the same way that evolution is a random process doesn't mean you can get a 747 from a tornado.
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.
Yes, but as with the geocentric model, it broke down completely when more observations were taken.
Sustaining a species can take a whole variety of forms. There are multiple solutions which fit the survival concept. As such, any one solution that one converges on is going to be a subjective one. Our species was evolved to be empathetic. We are exceedingly good at imaging what others think and feel. As such, it only makes sense that our morality would converge using that tool. Other animals which lack empathy would simply not have a structure anything like ours.
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.
empathy and rationality. As I said, it is the tools we were evolved to use.
Just because someone says something, that doesn't make it true. We know that physical trauma can result in aberrant wound healing. This could lead to infection, physical deformity, and incapacitation of that person. We can use our empathy to consider what it would mean to us to be punched in the face and determine if that is something "good". Once those concepts are laid out, we have the result that punching someone is "bad".
If we were evolved to be sociopaths who lacked empathy (Which we know is biologically possible as sociopaths exist), then such an argument wouldn't work. But that isn't how we are wired.
It doesn't though. Some or all of those making the claim could be wrong.
Then what is the practical significance of there being an objective morality, if we can't tell which one is which?
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.
But it points to the neurological fact that when people claim to consider their "moral provider" they are really only giving what they inherently want to hear. That objective moral source is an illusion.
