1. I submit that:
(a) Only what is true is worth believing in;
therefore, if morals are worth believing in, then they must be true.
(b) To be true is to be objectively true;
therefore, morals must be objective facts of the world in order to be worth believing in: i.e., morals cannot be "subjective" or "relative" if they are to be true, to be worth believing in.
I. That to be true is to be objectively true; and that non-objective "truth" is non-truth
(a) If morals are "relative", then it follows that they are outside the realm of objective reality.
(b) If morals have nothing to do with objective reality (if morals are subjective or relative), then they are not true. To be true, to be real, is to be objectively true, objectively real. Only objective veracity can have reality. If morals have any truth whatsoever -- and hence if they are worth believing in -- they must be within that sphere which I call objective reality. Thus they cannot be "subjective" or "relative" if they are to be true, if they are to be meaningful.
2. That it is impossible to believe something to be relative or subjective and yet hold a belief in it.
It is true that we may affect to believe, and often do in fact, in sensible discourse, that morals are non-true, or, what comes to the same thing, that they are "subjective", that they are "relative": this, upon first glance, is a logical supposition. However, in reality, if we have any moral beliefs at all, we believe them true, that is, objective, and, by definition, non-relative, non-subjective facts. We simply cannot hold a belief which we do not believe true. We can believe it to be true one day, and false another day. But we can never at the same time believe in its truth and believe it to be not true: we cannot hold a belief and not believe in it, and all this is obvious.
Yet what most people fail to understand is that, when someone says that the veracity of any given belief, such as a moral, is "subjective" (that it is outside the realm of objective reality which alone is reality and which alone can be the truth), or that he hold a belief but says that it is "relative", he is at the same time suggesting that it is not true. (Someone may say that the veracity of one of his beliefs is "subjective". But it is impossible for him to actually believe this when the belief in question is believed in.)
To repeat: it is impossible for someone to hold a belief when he regards that belief as not-true. To be relative or subjective is to be not-true. Therefore, it is impossible for someone to hold a belief when he believes the truth of that belief to be relative and/or subjective because, to repeat myself again, to be true is to be objectively true.
3. From this we see that morality, if it has any reality, is to be found in the world in which we live. It is not to be discovered by means of intuition, or by religion; it is not to be created by our subjective whims; it is not to be "relative" or in any way outside the objective world -- if it has any reality at all, if it is worth believing in.
It must be noted that we have not found morality. We merely know where to look for it if it exists (the objective world).
4. That morals cannot be immutable, or eternal, or universal
With that said, Science teaches us that there is no reason to suppose anything immutable. Science teaches us that everything changes. Science teaches us that the world, in a word, follows the laws of dialectics, that things are constantly passing into their opposites, are never at any moment the same, that the world is a congeries of contradictions. Nothing with objective reality is immutable. This must necessarily include morals, if morals are a part of objective reality, that is, if morals are real, if morals are worth believing in. The objective world, the world of truth, is constantly changing, and thus morals constantly change.
5. Now I do not know where to go with this. I have reached a dead end with morality. Concerning morals, this is all I know (I have made other claims regarding morality, but I am not entirely certain about their veracity):
(a) morals are true only if they are objectively real;
(b) supposing morals to exist (be part of the objective world which changes always), morals must be changing always.
(a) Only what is true is worth believing in;
therefore, if morals are worth believing in, then they must be true.
(b) To be true is to be objectively true;
therefore, morals must be objective facts of the world in order to be worth believing in: i.e., morals cannot be "subjective" or "relative" if they are to be true, to be worth believing in.
I. That to be true is to be objectively true; and that non-objective "truth" is non-truth
(a) If morals are "relative", then it follows that they are outside the realm of objective reality.
(b) If morals have nothing to do with objective reality (if morals are subjective or relative), then they are not true. To be true, to be real, is to be objectively true, objectively real. Only objective veracity can have reality. If morals have any truth whatsoever -- and hence if they are worth believing in -- they must be within that sphere which I call objective reality. Thus they cannot be "subjective" or "relative" if they are to be true, if they are to be meaningful.
2. That it is impossible to believe something to be relative or subjective and yet hold a belief in it.
It is true that we may affect to believe, and often do in fact, in sensible discourse, that morals are non-true, or, what comes to the same thing, that they are "subjective", that they are "relative": this, upon first glance, is a logical supposition. However, in reality, if we have any moral beliefs at all, we believe them true, that is, objective, and, by definition, non-relative, non-subjective facts. We simply cannot hold a belief which we do not believe true. We can believe it to be true one day, and false another day. But we can never at the same time believe in its truth and believe it to be not true: we cannot hold a belief and not believe in it, and all this is obvious.
Yet what most people fail to understand is that, when someone says that the veracity of any given belief, such as a moral, is "subjective" (that it is outside the realm of objective reality which alone is reality and which alone can be the truth), or that he hold a belief but says that it is "relative", he is at the same time suggesting that it is not true. (Someone may say that the veracity of one of his beliefs is "subjective". But it is impossible for him to actually believe this when the belief in question is believed in.)
To repeat: it is impossible for someone to hold a belief when he regards that belief as not-true. To be relative or subjective is to be not-true. Therefore, it is impossible for someone to hold a belief when he believes the truth of that belief to be relative and/or subjective because, to repeat myself again, to be true is to be objectively true.
3. From this we see that morality, if it has any reality, is to be found in the world in which we live. It is not to be discovered by means of intuition, or by religion; it is not to be created by our subjective whims; it is not to be "relative" or in any way outside the objective world -- if it has any reality at all, if it is worth believing in.
It must be noted that we have not found morality. We merely know where to look for it if it exists (the objective world).
4. That morals cannot be immutable, or eternal, or universal
With that said, Science teaches us that there is no reason to suppose anything immutable. Science teaches us that everything changes. Science teaches us that the world, in a word, follows the laws of dialectics, that things are constantly passing into their opposites, are never at any moment the same, that the world is a congeries of contradictions. Nothing with objective reality is immutable. This must necessarily include morals, if morals are a part of objective reality, that is, if morals are real, if morals are worth believing in. The objective world, the world of truth, is constantly changing, and thus morals constantly change.
5. Now I do not know where to go with this. I have reached a dead end with morality. Concerning morals, this is all I know (I have made other claims regarding morality, but I am not entirely certain about their veracity):
(a) morals are true only if they are objectively real;
(b) supposing morals to exist (be part of the objective world which changes always), morals must be changing always.
It only works perfectly if you are sniffing glue.