I agree with both blogs, just some clarifications for my own amusement:
Tag's quote writes:
Is it even possible to have an objective morality?
I think this depends on your definition of "objective."
You can have an objective morality (the facts of the matter are the same, regardless of who judges them) based on a standard.
The standard could be "if you say 'God made me do it' - then it's good. Otherwise, it's bad."
It's a terrible standard... but it is objective.
The standard could be "if the person affected by the action deems it good - then it's good, if the person affected by the action deems it bad - then it's bad."
It a great standard... and objective.
Of course, if the definition of "objective" implies that the standard
as well is provided by some universal law - you are correct.
Of course, the only things objective in this sense is "physics" so - perhaps "physics" would be a better word than objective here?
But, yes, this is generally what people mean when talking about "objective morality" - an absolute, external standard that is not "created by human intelligence."
Therefore, I will assume this is what's intended by the phrase "objective morality" here... I just like to provide options and pick nits.
Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one!
This, I agree with 100%.
When something is based on feelings (as morality is) - the standard needs to take that into account. An objective standard cannot.
Therefore, a subjective morality is extremely preferable over an objective one.
Just like a subjective wedding is extremely preferable over an objective (arranged..) one.
Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality?
I think it stems from the revolution of identifying "objective truth" as better than "subjective truth" - the realization that we do not (and cannot) define reality with our thoughts or words. Reality is what it is.
There was a long time in history when "reality" was "whatever that guy says it is... because he said so!"
The revelation that objective truth is a far greater tool and provides far greater progress that this wacko subjective truth washed over humanity like a tsunami.
I think this sense of "objective truth about physical reality is greater than subjective truth about physical reality" turned into a generality of "objective is better than subjective" because of how pervasive and in-your-face "physical reality" is.
Basically, my guess is that "subjective morality is better than objective morality" got thrown away with the bath water of "objective is better than subjective."
But, well, it's something that's very large-scale, and widespread across history.
It likely has a multitude of factors, varying for different situations and different people.