Nobody starts from a moral blank slate and chooses a moral code rationally; we develop one based on culture and passed experiences, evolving it as we live.
Essentially, yes. Humans can and often do allow themselves to be controlled by their baser emotions.
Both of you seem to be in agreement that your moral code is out of your own control. Your code is handed to you by your culture, and whether or not you follow it is largely independent of your own will. Things happen, you respond to them, and then your moral code changes in response to those events.
So why even bother with the concept at all? Reject the notion utterly. If we want to pretend that free will exists, then we should be able to decide for ourselves whether or not an action is moral, and choose to act or not depending on our answer.
EDIT: Basically, I know that we're not "blank slates" from a moral standpoint. What I'm saying is, why not wipe that slate and write your own morality on there?
Is that not what I am trying to do? I already reject quite a lot of culturally accepted norms/morality (e.g. that necrophilia is inherently morally wrong) on the basis of my beliefs.
Although I know that I am not perfectly rational with respect to my moral code, should I not strive to be?
I'll bet Jason can find some evidence of a biblical culture that engaged in genocide and thought it was moral, so I guess that means that genocide can't ever be objectively wrong, can it?
Exactly. Yes. Thank you.
No. I think you're continuing to confuse justification and toleration for morality. If there was ever a good candidate for an action to be objectively wrong, it would be genocide.
I'll bet Jason can find some evidence of a biblical culture that engaged in genocide and thought it was moral, so I guess that means that genocide can't ever be objectively wrong, can it?
In a world where you are the only conscious being, there is indeed an objective morality: that which is in your interest is necessarily moral, and that which is not is immoral. This is a rather important point, and I think people too often get this wrong by assuming that a world with only one person has no morality at all.
Why would your survival be moral? What determines that you must survive? What power do you answer to if you're immoral?
Here's a point I'd like to make - pure selfishness and pure altruism are both just forms of bigotry. The former holds oneself to be inherently more valuable than others, while the latter holds others to be inherently more valuable than oneself. Neither of the two positions is justifiable. However, from a pragmatic perspective, we should be inclined towards acting in our own interests. Why? Because while an individual may not perfectly know what is in their own interests, they still know a lot better than anyone else, and so each individual is generally the one best suited to taking care of themselves.
No, it is not. My morality is a belief I hold, but that does not mean it is not subject to debate, as with any other sincerely held belief. When someone says they believe female genital mutilation is a good thing, should we not attempt to continue to debate with them?
In a world where you are the only conscious being, there is indeed an objective morality: that which is in your interest is necessarily moral, and that which is not is immoral. This is a rather important point, and I think people too often get this wrong by assuming that a world with only one person has no morality at all.
Why would your survival be moral? What determines that you must survive? What power do you answer to if you're immoral?
The power you answer to for being immoral in that situation is you yourself. Also, please define "morality".
Because while an individual may not perfectly know what is in their own interests, they still know a lot better than anyone else, and so each individual is generally the one best suited to taking care of themselves.
You ever talk to someone who is seriously contemplating killing themselves? As in, sleeves rolled up, writing a note, wanting a reason to not do it?
Because while an individual may not perfectly know what is in their own interests, they still know a lot better than anyone else, and so each individual is generally the one best suited to taking care of themselves.
You ever talk to someone who is seriously contemplating killing themselves? As in, sleeves rolled up, writing a note, wanting a reason to not do it?
No, I have not talked to a person in such a situation. However, it is for that reason that I said "generally" and not "always".
I would argue that most suicidal people know, at some level, that their suicide is not in their own best interests, nor the interests of the majority of other people. Indeed, if this were not the case, why would they want a reason not to do it? I'd say that most people who are suicidal are just being deeply irrational.
If you came to the conclusion that suicide was the morally correct course of action and resolved to carry it out, you would not give other people the chance to stop you. You'd act more like a suicide bomber than a typical suicidal person.
In any case, if you accept my previous arguments, it follows that we have a moral duty (not an absolute one, mind you) to attempt to save people from their irrationality.
No, it is not. My morality is a belief I hold, but that does not mean it is not subject to debate, as with any other sincerely held belief. When someone says they believe female genital mutilation is a good thing, should we not attempt to continue to debate with them?
My point exactly. It is your personal morality, your personal belief. While you can certainly argue it with others, you won't reach a truth. Morality is subjective; it is subject to your beliefs.
All that you know is subjective, and there is no truth that you can be 100% certain of. Does that prevent us from coming up with scientific theories like general relativity? No. So why should the subjective nature of our experience prevent us from assigning to moral principles the same importance we do to scientific theories?
To quote Tim Minchin, as GreyHuge did in the Aliens thread, "So I resist the urge to ask Storm Whether knowledge is so loose-weave Of a morning When deciding whether to leave Her apartment by the front door Or a window on the second floor."
Despite the subjective nature of your perceptions of reality, I doubt you consider the belief that you will fly upon walking out the window equally valid to the belief that you will fall and get hurt. Not only this, but on a day-to-day basis you also believe that walking out of a window and getting hurt is a bad idea. Why don't you consider the idea that you ought to walk out your window equally valid?
If you answer that this is simply a belief you hold, that does not resolve this issue. That simply results in the question "why do you hold this belief?"
Because gravity, time, color, and the speed of sound are all phenomenons that can be independently corroborated or falsified through experimentation. Morality is a matter of perception. Right and wrong are unfalsifiable concepts.
No, you simply believe that they can be. How do you know that there are actually any other observers to corroborate the results of those experiments? How do you know that these things are not all in your imagination?
No, because I hold that even solipsism should not have a 100% truth value assigned to it. Though I do not view it as a certainty of existence, I accept an objective reality on a pragmatic basis. Besides, I'll agree to buy your claim if you agree to live your life as if all choices you could make in any situation are equally valid.
I really, really like David Deutsch's proposed counter-argument to solipsism, which attempts to show that solipsism just collapses into realism when viewed closely and Occam's razor is applied.
I really, really like David Deutsch's proposed counter-argument to solipsism, which attempts to show that solipsism just collapses into realism when viewed closely and Occam's razor is applied.
It's an interesting argument, but it has flaws.
However, if there are sources of ideas that behave as if they were independent of oneself, then they necessarily are independent of oneself. For if I define 'myself' as the conscious entity that has the thoughts and feelings I am aware of having, then the 'dream-people' I seem to interact with are by definition something other than that narrowly defined self, and so I must concede that something other than myself exists. My only other option, if I were a committed solipsist, would be to regard the dream-people as creations of my unconscious mind, and therefore as part of 'myself' in a looser sense. But then I should be forced to concede that 'myself' had a very rich structure, most of which is independent of my conscious self. Within that structure are entities — dream-people — who, despite being mere constituents of the mind of a supposed solipsist, behave exactly as if they were committed anti-solipsists. So I could not call myself wholly a solipsist, for only my narrowly defined self would take that view. Many, apparently most, of the opinions held within my mind as a whole would oppose solipsism. I could study the 'outer' region of myself and find that it seems to obey certain laws, the same laws as the dream-textbooks say apply to what they call the physical universe. I would find that there is far more of the outer region than the inner region. Aside from containing more ideas, it is also more complex, more varied, and has more measurable variables, by a literally astronomical factor, than the inner region.
I'll break down my counter-arguments bit by bit.
For if I define 'myself' as the conscious entity that has the thoughts and feelings I am aware of having, then the 'dream-people' I seem to interact with are by definition something other than that narrowly defined self, and so I must concede that something other than myself exists.
This only holds if you assume that you must be aware of the full extent of all of your thoughts in order for you to have them. Solipsism only requires that you be aware that you think, not that you understand the individual sources of your thoughts within your own consciousness. This argument is also assuming that these "dream-people" are actually sources of thought in the same way that you (whatever you are) are also a source of thought. It is entirely possible that they are simply a manifestation of you considering more than one perspective for a given thought.
Now, the man has predicted this response, because he is smart:
My only other option, if I were a committed solipsist, would be to regard the dream-people as creations of my unconscious mind, and therefore as part of 'myself' in a looser sense.
His response to that response, however, is even weaker than his first response:
But then I should be forced to concede that 'myself' had a very rich structure, most of which is independent of my conscious self. Within that structure are entities — dream-people — who, despite being mere constituents of the mind of a supposed solipsist, behave exactly as if they were committed anti-solipsists.
This argument is deeply flawed because it assumes that the "dream-people" are actually independent of the conscious self. The fact that they take an oppositional stance does not imply independence; in fact, in order for one to take a stance in opposition to some philosophy, one must be necessarily tied to that philosophy.
Or, in other words, the anti-solipsistic entities which we perceive cannot possibly exist outside of the context of solipsism! Thus, they are hardly "independent." They may be perceived independently of the self, but again, that doesn't mean that they are actually separate from the self. Nor is there any indication that they are actually thinking things, as we have no way of knowing whether or not those things are actually thinking.
So I could not call myself wholly a solipsist, for only my narrowly defined self would take that view.
This argument (which he makes more than once) is also flawed, because the self is not actually narrow in its definition. In fact, I interpret the solipsistic "self" to be the broadest possible definition that could possibly exist, as it encompasses every aspect of everything with which you interact on a daily basis.
In other words, the true solipsist would recognize all as part of a singular, shared consciousness, of which any one member is only dimly aware. Once again, how is that a "narrow" definition? It's hardly any definition at all! That's the point!
I won't even get into his science argument, because it falls apart quickly if you accept what I've just said. Even if you don't, his "science" only works if you simply accept things at face value and do no further investigation. That is not science.
I could say more, but I don't actually care that much. The only way to defeat solipsism is tack more onto it than the core philosophy espouses, and then try to defeat the whole argument by defeating the tacked-on stuff. Sorry, but I don't fall for that.
I hate solipsism anyway. I prefer not to reduce existence to the equivalent of cosmic circle jerk with an infinite amount of thought-constructs of my own device. Vastly less interesting than the weirdness of realism.
Vastly less interesting than the weirdness of realism.
See, that's a counter-argument that I buy. Logical refutation simply can't work, because solipsism is at the core of logic. But the "fuck you" response is perfectly valid.
No, because I hold that even solipsism should not have a 100% truth value assigned to it. Though I do not view it as a certainty of existence, I accept an objective reality on a pragmatic basis. Besides, I'll agree to buy your claim if you agree to live your life as if all choices you could make in any situation are equally valid.
I don't believe that all choices are equally valid. I believe that different and mutually exclusive moral codes are accepted by different groups as being valid, which means that morality is subjective and not objective.
I apologize that this post has taken so long, I have been pretty busy in the interim.
I'm really talking more about America, but if you'd like to show me some writings of these ancient cultures showing that they, indeed, thought slavery was moral, then please collect them and post them. I'm pretty sure you'll find that any morality they wrote about was more along the lines of simple authoritarian admonitions to the slaves to behave, such as what Jason cited.
As I recall there were few dissenting voices in the ancient world as to slavery being wrong, Socrates being a notable one(the wikipedia states that he made the first known condemnation of slavery, I don't have access to the book referenced so I'll have to take their word for it). Aristotle had said that all non Greeks are natural slaves and that any one who does any manual labor should be disqualified from citizenship. While his justification is based in the idea that they were uncivilized brutes that deserved to be controlled because of their inferiority (this was more towards the collection of conquered people as slaves, they were conquered and thus inferior), I believe that still counts towards a honest belief that slavery was a right thing, a moral thing.
Also, Greco-Roman slavery was a little bit different than African-American slavery. Can you tell me why?
A Roman slave had the ability to purchase his freedom, could get days off, could own personal property as opposed to american chattel slavery which took everything from the slave, thats just off the top of my head but if you want an exhaustive comparison it can be done. I appreciate that the breadth of my knowledge is not very well known here, but I do wonder sometimes why someone would bring up something that one did not have any idea of.
I have a hard time believing that ancient people just tolerated slavery for nearly 2000 years because those who knew it to be wrong did not have the clout to get rid of it. Some of the oldest laws we can find recorded have guidelines and requirements as to how slaves were to be treated with respect to the law.
Just saying that humanity just tolerated slavery for so long even though the majority knew it was wrong does not make it so. The historical record doesn't support that. If it did it would show that through out history we constantly struggled with slavery as we did only recently in our history.
For something to be so self evidently moral, right, just, to take nearly 4,000 years before the institution of it is no longer sanctioned by any government is hard to believe.
If slavery were objectively moral, objectively right and just, then why did it take so long for that to be the status quo?
What makes something objectively moral, right and just? What makes something self evidently correct? If you were to ask any american child if it was okay to enslave someone they would recoil and say no its not a good thing to do. If you were to ask the same of a child from ancient Greece or Rome you would get a very enthusiastic yes its perfectly right to enslave those you have conquered. They'd also probably say that murder was perfectly acceptable under a much broader set of circumstances than we consider today and that yes it was perfectly fine that Aristotle buggered his young behind earlier that day.
Societies change a great deal through time and ascribing our morals to them is ridiculous. The value of human life is not universal. Through out time different cultures assigned different values to different people in society. Those at the bottom were (I would argue even today) expendable and those at the top more precious than gold pressed latnium.
The sheer fact that we can have such a vigorous debate about this subject shows that there is no objective morality. Nothing is absolutely right, just or moral. If these things were self evident then this thread would have never been made. There are no arguments as to whether liquid water is wet is there? That women have secrets? And Satan Claws Jimmy, he's out there. *ahem*
The sheer fact that we can have such a vigorous debate about this subject shows that there is no objective morality.
No, it does not. People have debates that are just as vigorous about reality itself, in topics such as "The Christian God exists", yet one side is clearly wrong in that debate.
The question of whether the Earth revolved around the sun was also once a matter of serious debate, but the fact that it was disputed does not mean this is merely a subjective issue.
The mere fact that people disagree on the matter, and have done so throughout history, proves nothing.
The sheer fact that we can have such a vigorous debate about this subject shows that there is no objective morality.
No, it does not. People have debates that are just as vigorous about entirely objective claims such as "The Christian God exists", yet one side is clearly wrong in that debate.
Clearly wrong? I'm as firmly atheistic as anyone can really be and yet I'm not comfortable with that. It is possible, however improbable, that they are correct. The evidence we have indicates that no God exists, let alone a christian one. However one can not discount the possibly that their god had created everything as it is as a test of faith.
Completely denying that it is a possibility means that you really are no different than a christian who believes absolutely that their god exists.
The question of whether the Earth revolved the sun was also once a matter of serious debate, but the fact that it was disputed does not mean this is merely a subjective issue.
The mere fact that people disagree on the matter, and have done so throughout history, proves nothing.
Except I can provide irrefutable proof that the Earth does in fact revolve around the Sun. A mountain of evidence. I see no such evidence here for morality.
The only real proof that something is absolutely moral is if it is self evident to all human beings, and this clearly is not the case. No matter what you think of I am absolutely certain you can find at least one person alive today, and most probably entire cultures in history, that would think you insane that it was wrong to do otherwise.
Clearly wrong? I'm as firmly atheistic as anyone can really be and yet I'm not comfortable with that. It is possible, however improbable, that they are correct. The evidence we have indicates that no God exists, let alone a christian one. However one can not discount the possibly that their god had created everything as it is as a test of faith.
Completely denying that it is a possibility means that you really are no different than a christian who believes absolutely that their god exists.
Did I say which side was wrong? I merely said one was.
If I was to believe something absolutely, it would mean that no matter what evidence I was shown, I could not possibly be convinced otherwise. I do not believe anything at all to be an absolute fact, because I cannot have perfect knowledge of anything at all. Hence the best I can do is assign probabilities to things, and on a day-to-day basis act on the basis of beliefs to which I assign very high probabilities.
However, as far as I know, probabilities are not a property of reality, they merely describe my imperfect knowledge of it. To the best of my knowledge, either the Christian God exists or the Christian God does not, and it is possible to find out. At the very least, its seems that I can confirm it one way or the other by dying.
Nonetheless, I do think that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the God that most people claim to believe in. Absolute certainty, on the other hand, would require infinite evidence.
Did I say which side was wrong? I merely said one was.
My apologies then, I misinterpreted your comment.
I believe my point about something being objectively moral still stands however. If this were true, then all of humanity would have always recognized it. Every single one of us, I suppose I should bar those mentally incompetent, would be able to agree that this one action was wrong. But that hasn't ever happened.
Water is wet, when something is knocked off a table it falls to the ground, these things are self evident.
As I said before, the mere fact that people disagree on the matter doesn't mean that one side isn't objectively wrong.
I believe my point about something being objectively moral still stands however. If this were true, then all of humanity would have always recognized it. Every single one of us, I suppose I should bar those mentally incompetent, would be able to agree that this one action was wrong. But that hasn't ever happened.
No. Even if there were objective morality, that doesn't mean humans would easily recognize it. To put it simply, humans are stupid, and morality isn't necessarily something simple and easy to understand.
I'm not currently arguing for moral objectivity, but your argument for subjectivity is a poor one.
I am having a hard time with the concept that if something is objectively moral, if something is objectively just and right, that people would not just know.
I mean, from where would this objective morality come from? If it is something that exists out side of humanity then one could point to it and say "look there! this proves that these action are just!" But that does not exist. I doubt that anyone can even fathom a way that could exist without a supreme being. The universe at large does not care, or feel, or anything. It just is. The universe is amoral.
Therefore morality must come from within us, must be defined by us. As such any morality that could be described as objectively true must be universal, yes?
If all of us were not born with this innate sense that these action were not just, could you still call something defined by humanity as objective?
While we're on the topic of "what is morality," I should bring up a humorous anecdote that happened today. Back in November, my theology teacher promoter defined morality as a "science." His main reasoning for this was that we could study it and learn. At the time, I decided to let it slide and see if he gave any good reasons why later. He never did. So today, he said that theology is also a "science." So I called him on it. He said things like "remember, I didn't define only morality as a science, all of theology is" and gave a list of things that science had shown the Church was wrong about, and that had changed Church doctrine. I said "but don't still need tests? There's no way to objectively test morality. Just going to the Bible and researching it isn't science." To which he responded "Catholicism is based on more than the Bible. . . we also have tradition. . ." Exasperated, I said "but that's still not testing. You can't experiment to determine morality." His response was essentially that he's glad that I'm having a discussion, but if I still don't get it I'll have to look it up outside of class, because he can't keep holding up class for this discussion. TL;DR:
Comments
Although I know that I am not perfectly rational with respect to my moral code, should I not strive to be?
However, from a pragmatic perspective, we should be inclined towards acting in our own interests. Why? Because while an individual may not perfectly know what is in their own interests, they still know a lot better than anyone else, and so each individual is generally the one best suited to taking care of themselves.
Also, please define "morality".
I would argue that most suicidal people know, at some level, that their suicide is not in their own best interests, nor the interests of the majority of other people. Indeed, if this were not the case, why would they want a reason not to do it? I'd say that most people who are suicidal are just being deeply irrational.
If you came to the conclusion that suicide was the morally correct course of action and resolved to carry it out, you would not give other people the chance to stop you. You'd act more like a suicide bomber than a typical suicidal person.
In any case, if you accept my previous arguments, it follows that we have a moral duty (not an absolute one, mind you) to attempt to save people from their irrationality.
So why should the subjective nature of our experience prevent us from assigning to moral principles the same importance we do to scientific theories?
"So I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave
Of a morning
When deciding whether to leave
Her apartment by the front door
Or a window on the second floor."
Despite the subjective nature of your perceptions of reality, I doubt you consider the belief that you will fly upon walking out the window equally valid to the belief that you will fall and get hurt. Not only this, but on a day-to-day basis you also believe that walking out of a window and getting hurt is a bad idea. Why don't you consider the idea that you ought to walk out your window equally valid?
If you answer that this is simply a belief you hold, that does not resolve this issue. That simply results in the question "why do you hold this belief?"
How do you know that these things are not all in your imagination?
Besides, I'll agree to buy your claim if you agree to live your life as if all choices you could make in any situation are equally valid.
Now, the man has predicted this response, because he is smart: His response to that response, however, is even weaker than his first response: This argument is deeply flawed because it assumes that the "dream-people" are actually independent of the conscious self. The fact that they take an oppositional stance does not imply independence; in fact, in order for one to take a stance in opposition to some philosophy, one must be necessarily tied to that philosophy.
Or, in other words, the anti-solipsistic entities which we perceive cannot possibly exist outside of the context of solipsism! Thus, they are hardly "independent." They may be perceived independently of the self, but again, that doesn't mean that they are actually separate from the self. Nor is there any indication that they are actually thinking things, as we have no way of knowing whether or not those things are actually thinking. This argument (which he makes more than once) is also flawed, because the self is not actually narrow in its definition. In fact, I interpret the solipsistic "self" to be the broadest possible definition that could possibly exist, as it encompasses every aspect of everything with which you interact on a daily basis.
In other words, the true solipsist would recognize all as part of a singular, shared consciousness, of which any one member is only dimly aware. Once again, how is that a "narrow" definition? It's hardly any definition at all! That's the point!
I won't even get into his science argument, because it falls apart quickly if you accept what I've just said. Even if you don't, his "science" only works if you simply accept things at face value and do no further investigation. That is not science.
I could say more, but I don't actually care that much. The only way to defeat solipsism is tack more onto it than the core philosophy espouses, and then try to defeat the whole argument by defeating the tacked-on stuff. Sorry, but I don't fall for that.
I have a hard time believing that ancient people just tolerated slavery for nearly 2000 years because those who knew it to be wrong did not have the clout to get rid of it. Some of the oldest laws we can find recorded have guidelines and requirements as to how slaves were to be treated with respect to the law.
Just saying that humanity just tolerated slavery for so long even though the majority knew it was wrong does not make it so. The historical record doesn't support that. If it did it would show that through out history we constantly struggled with slavery as we did only recently in our history.
For something to be so self evidently moral, right, just, to take nearly 4,000 years before the institution of it is no longer sanctioned by any government is hard to believe.
If slavery were objectively moral, objectively right and just, then why did it take so long for that to be the status quo?
What makes something objectively moral, right and just? What makes something self evidently correct? If you were to ask any american child if it was okay to enslave someone they would recoil and say no its not a good thing to do. If you were to ask the same of a child from ancient Greece or Rome you would get a very enthusiastic yes its perfectly right to enslave those you have conquered. They'd also probably say that murder was perfectly acceptable under a much broader set of circumstances than we consider today and that yes it was perfectly fine that Aristotle buggered his young behind earlier that day.
Societies change a great deal through time and ascribing our morals to them is ridiculous. The value of human life is not universal. Through out time different cultures assigned different values to different people in society. Those at the bottom were (I would argue even today) expendable and those at the top more precious than gold pressed latnium.
The sheer fact that we can have such a vigorous debate about this subject shows that there is no objective morality. Nothing is absolutely right, just or moral. If these things were self evident then this thread would have never been made. There are no arguments as to whether liquid water is wet is there? That women have secrets? And Satan Claws Jimmy, he's out there. *ahem*
People have debates that are just as vigorous about reality itself, in topics such as "The Christian God exists", yet one side is clearly wrong in that debate.
The question of whether the Earth revolved around the sun was also once a matter of serious debate, but the fact that it was disputed does not mean this is merely a subjective issue.
The mere fact that people disagree on the matter, and have done so throughout history, proves nothing.
Completely denying that it is a possibility means that you really are no different than a christian who believes absolutely that their god exists.
The only real proof that something is absolutely moral is if it is self evident to all human beings, and this clearly is not the case. No matter what you think of I am absolutely certain you can find at least one person alive today, and most probably entire cultures in history, that would think you insane that it was wrong to do otherwise.
If I was to believe something absolutely, it would mean that no matter what evidence I was shown, I could not possibly be convinced otherwise. I do not believe anything at all to be an absolute fact, because I cannot have perfect knowledge of anything at all. Hence the best I can do is assign probabilities to things, and on a day-to-day basis act on the basis of beliefs to which I assign very high probabilities.
However, as far as I know, probabilities are not a property of reality, they merely describe my imperfect knowledge of it. To the best of my knowledge, either the Christian God exists or the Christian God does not, and it is possible to find out. At the very least, its seems that I can confirm it one way or the other by dying.
Nonetheless, I do think that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the God that most people claim to believe in. Absolute certainty, on the other hand, would require infinite evidence.
I believe my point about something being objectively moral still stands however. If this were true, then all of humanity would have always recognized it. Every single one of us, I suppose I should bar those mentally incompetent, would be able to agree that this one action was wrong. But that hasn't ever happened.
Water is wet, when something is knocked off a table it falls to the ground, these things are self evident.
I'm not currently arguing for moral objectivity, but your argument for subjectivity is a poor one.
I mean, from where would this objective morality come from? If it is something that exists out side of humanity then one could point to it and say "look there! this proves that these action are just!" But that does not exist. I doubt that anyone can even fathom a way that could exist without a supreme being. The universe at large does not care, or feel, or anything. It just is. The universe is amoral.
Therefore morality must come from within us, must be defined by us. As such any morality that could be described as objectively true must be universal, yes?
If all of us were not born with this innate sense that these action were not just, could you still call something defined by humanity as objective?
TL;DR: