reading the opinions of stuffy white dudes on this site and I need you to repeat something with me: objective is not the same as empirical. An objective truth only requires two observers by definition.

The golden rule is the simplest sort of objective ethical truth not necessarily because it's universal or have any connection to some inherent material Truth but because you'd see the social costs of walking down the street punching everyone you see. This shit is p basic

@Ratttz "An objective truth only requires two observers by definition."

I disagree, but I'm not sure if you want to do the whole discourse thing right now. You up for it? XD

@Angle I mean, I guess? I suppose that since work is over, I'm more willing to entertain this.

@Ratttz Cool! Unfortunately, I already lost the bit I was writing, and started another big writing piece. I'll see about getting back to you though. XD

@Ratttz Alright, so let me give you the short version. Essentially, I disagree on the semantics you're using. "Empirical" usually means relating to experimentation and measurement. It's usually used in opposition to logical, or relating purely to reasoned deduction. Objective, on the other hand, means not influenced by personal feelings or preferences. Now, when it comes to morality, you can't pull it ex nihilo - it all has to be based on some kind of an axiom. And the only place to base that axiom is on personal feelings or preferences, which are subjective - thus making all morality subjective. :/

@Angle "Objective, on the other hand, means not influenced by personal feelings or preferences." No, that's the common vernacular use of the phrase.

I'm referring specifically to objective facts of consensus reality, which is fundamentally a different thing. Within this framework, moral axioms aren't created ex nihilo, but are consequences of social relations.

I agree that there can be no moral axioms from first principles, but that framework sucks.

@Ratttz I don't think it's fair to call consensus morality objective. I'd prefer some other term for it. :/

@Angle It is because we haven't found any other realities, and even if we did they'd _become_ consensus realities.

@Ratttz Individual realities? Or competing consensus realities. Actually, thats a good point - even when a consensus reality seems dominant, theres always competition. Even when homosexuality was something that could get you thrown in prison, there was still stonewall inn. :/