What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

2 Objective: contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values within an organised framework and system;
i.e. they are confirmed by peers within the scientific framework and system within the respective field of science.

This thread was started by Peter Holmes, and in his OP he defined very clearly what he meant by 'objective':

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent from judgement, belief or opinion?

'Independent from judgement, belief or opinion'. This rules out your use of 'objective' to mean 'contingent upon a collective-of-subjects with shared values'.

What you are trying to do is change the question that this thread has always been about. You should respect Peter's definition of 'objective', and not try to unilaterally change it, because that is obscurantist, discourteous, and inconsiderate to everyone else who is trying to address the question that Peter originally asked.

VA is immune to logic and reason, but he's still quite productive, he invented a dozen brand new fallacies without breaking a sweat.

[CIN]

With reference to morality, I define 'good' as not-evil.
Then I provided a definition of 'what is evil', i.e. that which is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity. One example is the killings of humans by humans.

So what is your definition of 'good' outside morality, e.g. in the sentence 'that was a good cup of coffee'?

"One man's meat is another man's poison.
One man's poison is another man's meat."

Note the typical dictionary meaning of 'good';
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good
the various meanings are all subject to the above meat <-> poison dilemma.
The meanings of the term 'good' is too loose.

The compilers of Merriam-Webster are making a very common mistake. What they list as synonyms for 'good' are not synonyms, they are different properties that things possess that lead people to call those things 'good'.

Also, you are arguing like this:
1. Different people call different things 'good'.
2. Therefore 'good' cannot have a single meaning.
This is an invalid argument.

However, if you feel that the task of seeking a single definition of 'good' is too hard for you, I won't press you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So what is your definition of 'good' outside morality, e.g. in the sentence 'that was a good cup of coffee'?

"One man's meat is another man's poison.
One man's poison is another man's meat."

Note the typical dictionary meaning of 'good';
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good
the various meanings are all subject to the above meat <-> poison dilemma.
The meanings of the term 'good' is too loose.

The compilers of Merriam-Webster are making a very common mistake. What they list as synonyms for 'good' are not synonyms, they are different properties that things possess that lead people to call those things 'good'.

Also, you are arguing like this:
1. Different people call different things 'good'.
2. Therefore 'good' cannot have a single meaning.
This is an invalid argument.

However, if you feel that the task of seeking a single definition of 'good' is too hard for you, I won't press you.

My main point is this;

It [what is "good"] is already messy in the general sense, thus more worst in the moral sense or context.
see the various controversies related to 'good' within morality.
"Good" within Moral Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=42955
That is why I propose to avoid using the term 'good' as significant within morality.

Do you think you can expedite moral progress within humanity [in the future] starting with a definition of 'what is good' within morality?
I believe it is more efficient to expedite moral progress with a definition of what is morality as 'the reduction, prevention and elimination' of evil [as defined] where whatever is moral good will spontaneously emerged. There is no need to focus on what is good.
This is a redirection to focus on the root causes rather than chasing after the consequences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I thought psychopathy is defined by the sufferer's lack of insight into their own condition. I thought talking therapy alone did not affect psychopathy and medication is always indicated. The "neural moral compass" of someone suffering from a psychopathic incident is affected by both medication and talking therapy .So i agree that "No amount of education can change a malignant psychopath within his lifetime".
I have medicalised my language about psychopathy because medical ethics are such that medics attach no blame to someone who lacks insight their own selves and motives. The law is not so merciful as it tends to be punitive and is only recently emerging from more extreme punitiveness. In countries that have undergone the scientific enlightenment the meaning of agape-love has only recently ,with improved universal education, become normal.

You write about "root causes "(of moral evil). The root cause is lack of moral development of a society. Some traditional societies are morally developed without any intervention apart from its accustomed rituals. But other societies have traditions that cause suffering rather than happiness , and it's those societies that need as many educated people as possible to help the society to be happier, to not perceive any need for war or greed .

In the meantime there is no developed society in the world that is untainted by war and greed. The United Nations comes closest to the ideal, with international law a close runner-up.The UN is at present suffering from attrition by Israel however it would be too optimistic to expect a world of peace and justice to happen with ease.

I agree with the above points.

To add:
There is a lack of attention to the root causes of moral development by the individual[s] and no facilitation from a society.

But to understand the root causes there is a need to recognize what are the basic principles of morality and that there are objective moral facts as grounds to facilitate continuous improvements.

Then there is the need to cultivate the motivation and drive for moral progress. This can only be done with improvements to the connectivity of the neural moral compass in the brain/body in the future to expedite moral progress.

The above moral progress will be badly inhibited if morality is not recognized as objective [OP], whilst the moral relativists, moral skeptics are trying to impose their will and their ideology that hinder moral progress.

Are you perhaps ignoring theories of moral development such as Kohlberg's?
https://bmdeducation.org/understanding- ... ive-guide/ Theories of moral development get a lot of attention from educationists .

"The connectivity of neural tissue" is important. However the B vitamins that we need for this can be bought over the counter, are water soluble, and are common knowledge.

I don't think quibbles about the meaning of 'objective' are any help .

Moral maturity is widely recognised as a worthy goal by educationists , courts of law, and parents

Moral development such as Kohlberg's stages of moral development is a part of morality, I am not giving emphasis to it.
Kohlberg's is about reasoning of moral decision which is applicable in some circumstances, what is more effective is to develop an interactive moral model that drive moral progress continually and naturally towards the ideal from whatever one's moral base is.

Without recognizing morality facts as absolute objective ideals, we will not have fixed moral standards [goal posts] to improve upon.
Those who reject that moral is objective has immature philosophical thinking.
The moral potential is inherent and universal in all humans [thus objective], albeit with varying degrees of unfoldment of the potential.

Btw, morality is independent from the legal which is political.
Morality is grounded on absolute freedom of the individual[s] working in harmony with the collective to propagate moral progress spontaneously [without coercion or threats {legal or Hellfire].

[Belinda]

I agree with the above points.

To add:
There is a lack of attention to the root causes of moral development by the individual[s] and no facilitation from a society.

But to understand the root causes there is a need to recognize what are the basic principles of morality and that there are objective moral facts as grounds to facilitate continuous improvements.

Then there is the need to cultivate the motivation and drive for moral progress. This can only be done with improvements to the connectivity of the neural moral compass in the brain/body in the future to expedite moral progress.

The above moral progress will be badly inhibited if morality is not recognized as objective [OP], whilst the moral relativists, moral skeptics are trying to impose their will and their ideology that hinder moral progress.

Are you perhaps ignoring theories of moral development such as Kohlberg's?
https://bmdeducation.org/understanding- ... ive-guide/ Theories of moral development get a lot of attention from educationists .

"The connectivity of neural tissue" is important. However the B vitamins that we need for this can be bought over the counter, are water soluble, and are common knowledge.

I don't think quibbles about the meaning of 'objective' are any help .

Moral maturity is widely recognised as a worthy goal by educationists , courts of law, and parents

Moral development such as Kohlberg's stages of moral development is a part of morality, I am not giving emphasis to it.
Kohlberg's is about reasoning of moral decision which is applicable in some circumstances, what is more effective is to develop an interactive moral model that drive moral progress continually and naturally towards the ideal from whatever one's moral base is.

Without recognizing morality facts as absolute objective ideals, we will not have fixed moral standards [goal posts] to improve upon.
Those who reject that moral is objective has immature philosophical thinking.
The moral potential is inherent and universal in all humans [thus objective], albeit with varying degrees of unfoldment of the potential.

Btw, morality is independent from the legal which is political.
Morality is grounded on absolute freedom of the individual[s] working in harmony with the collective to propagate moral progress spontaneously [without coercion or threats {legal or Hellfire].

What was your "ideal" moral basis when you were nine years old.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you perhaps ignoring theories of moral development such as Kohlberg's?
https://bmdeducation.org/understanding- ... ive-guide/ Theories of moral development get a lot of attention from educationists .

"The connectivity of neural tissue" is important. However the B vitamins that we need for this can be bought over the counter, are water soluble, and are common knowledge.

I don't think quibbles about the meaning of 'objective' are any help .

Moral maturity is widely recognised as a worthy goal by educationists , courts of law, and parents

Moral development such as Kohlberg's stages of moral development is a part of morality, I am not giving emphasis to it.
Kohlberg's is about reasoning of moral decision which is applicable in some circumstances, what is more effective is to develop an interactive moral model that drive moral progress continually and naturally towards the ideal from whatever one's moral base is.

Without recognizing morality facts as absolute objective ideals, we will not have fixed moral standards [goal posts] to improve upon.
Those who reject that moral is objective has immature philosophical thinking.
The moral potential is inherent and universal in all humans [thus objective], albeit with varying degrees of unfoldment of the potential.

Btw, morality is independent from the legal which is political.
Morality is grounded on absolute freedom of the individual[s] working in harmony with the collective to propagate moral progress spontaneously [without coercion or threats {legal or Hellfire].

What was your "ideal" moral basis when you were nine years old.

Every human being [so, me included] is "programmed" with an inherent neural moral potential [from birth within one's DNA] to strive towards the moral ideal.
See its unfoldment [albeit very slowly] in real life and history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature
The book [by Steven Pinker] uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography.

It is only those who are mental cases with dormant, weakened or damaged "moral drive" [e.g. malignant psychopaths] who are not striving [thus improving] toward the [impossible to achieve] moral ideals.

Due to the current state of the psychological state of humanity, the unfoldment of the moral potential [higher up the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs] is very slow because the lower basic and psychological needs are still very dominant. This slow but nevertheless a natural progress is evident as indicated in Pinker's book.

To expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within the majority, we need to recognize that 'Morality is Objective'; subjective morality means anything goes and progress is already and will be greatly hindered or could turn to be worse.

[Belinda]

Moral development such as Kohlberg's stages of moral development is a part of morality, I am not giving emphasis to it.
Kohlberg's is about reasoning of moral decision which is applicable in some circumstances, what is more effective is to develop an interactive moral model that drive moral progress continually and naturally towards the ideal from whatever one's moral base is.

Without recognizing morality facts as absolute objective ideals, we will not have fixed moral standards [goal posts] to improve upon.
Those who reject that moral is objective has immature philosophical thinking.
The moral potential is inherent and universal in all humans [thus objective], albeit with varying degrees of unfoldment of the potential.

Btw, morality is independent from the legal which is political.
Morality is grounded on absolute freedom of the individual[s] working in harmony with the collective to propagate moral progress spontaneously [without coercion or threats {legal or Hellfire].

What was your "ideal" moral basis when you were nine years old.

Every human being [so, me included] is "programmed" with an inherent neural moral potential [from birth within one's DNA] to strive towards the moral ideal.
See its unfoldment [albeit very slowly] in real life and history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature
The book [by Steven Pinker] uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography.

It is only those who are mental cases with dormant, weakened or damaged "moral drive" [e.g. malignant psychopaths] who are not striving [thus improving] toward the [impossible to achieve] moral ideals.

Due to the current state of the psychological state of humanity, the unfoldment of the moral potential [higher up the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs] is very slow because the lower basic and psychological needs are still very dominant. This slow but nevertheless a natural progress is evident as indicated in Pinker's book.

To expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within the majority, we need to recognize that 'Morality is Objective'; subjective morality means anything goes and progress is already and will be greatly hindered or could turn to be worse.

But when you and I were nine years old we lacked the very concept of moral ideal. We were as we were---immature.

Subjective morality is what is the case whatever age the subjects are. Like it or not, the responsibility is yours . We protect nine year olds , and mental defectives , but as adults we must make our own decisions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What was your "ideal" moral basis when you were nine years old.

Every human being [so, me included] is "programmed" with an inherent neural moral potential [from birth within one's DNA] to strive towards the moral ideal.
See its unfoldment [albeit very slowly] in real life and history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature
The book [by Steven Pinker] uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography.

It is only those who are mental cases with dormant, weakened or damaged "moral drive" [e.g. malignant psychopaths] who are not striving [thus improving] toward the [impossible to achieve] moral ideals.

Due to the current state of the psychological state of humanity, the unfoldment of the moral potential [higher up the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs] is very slow because the lower basic and psychological needs are still very dominant. This slow but nevertheless a natural progress is evident as indicated in Pinker's book.

To expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within the majority, we need to recognize that 'Morality is Objective'; subjective morality means anything goes and progress is already and will be greatly hindered or could turn to be worse.

But when you and I were nine years old we lacked the very concept of moral ideal. We were as we were---immature.

Subjective morality is what is the case whatever age the subjects are. Like it or not, the responsibility is yours . We protect nine year olds , and mental defectives , but as adults we must make our own decisions.

The moral ideal or any positive ideal is what all humans [regardless of age] strives toward without even being conscious of it most of the time. However there are many adults who make a conscious effort to strive towards the ideal as a guide for continual improvement.

It is this striving toward the idea and the universal moral drive as Empirical evidences indicate the moral drive is inherent in all humans, e.g.:

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

What makes the universal moral drive more objective is, it is represented by physical neurons within a functional system within the brain in connection to the body.

The related moral activities manifested from these objective elements are likely to vary across the inevitable different environment and human circumstances; this is the subjective aspect of morality.
However, what is critical to morality are the universal moral elements and the need for the majority to recognize the existence of these objective moral elements and not surrender merely to the varied subjective elements of morality.

There is no denial that Morality is Objective.

Analogy
Note the Analogy with the Objective Metabolic System within human nature.
It is obvious and evident the choice of food is subjective across the world due to the differences in environment, social, culture, etc. BUT there is definitely something universal and objective within the metabolic system, i.e. the universal digestive system and the universal need for the basic nutrients [carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals,] in all humans.
The same objectivity applies to the moral system within all humans that exists within the subjective moral expressions.

[Peter Holmes]

VA's argument is that humans are neurologically programmed to act in certain ways, and that this means morality is objective. But this conclusion is possible only if what we call morality has nothing to do with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour - which is what VA claims. So VA's is not a theory of morality.

[Belinda]

Every human being [so, me included] is "programmed" with an inherent neural moral potential [from birth within one's DNA] to strive towards the moral ideal.
See its unfoldment [albeit very slowly] in real life and history.


It is only those who are mental cases with dormant, weakened or damaged "moral drive" [e.g. malignant psychopaths] who are not striving [thus improving] toward the [impossible to achieve] moral ideals.

Due to the current state of the psychological state of humanity, the unfoldment of the moral potential [higher up the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs] is very slow because the lower basic and psychological needs are still very dominant. This slow but nevertheless a natural progress is evident as indicated in Pinker's book.

To expedite the unfoldment of the moral potential within the majority, we need to recognize that 'Morality is Objective'; subjective morality means anything goes and progress is already and will be greatly hindered or could turn to be worse.

But when you and I were nine years old we lacked the very concept of moral ideal. We were as we were---immature.

Subjective morality is what is the case whatever age the subjects are. Like it or not, the responsibility is yours . We protect nine year olds , and mental defectives , but as adults we must make our own decisions.

The moral ideal or any positive ideal is what all humans [regardless of age] strives toward without even being conscious of it most of the time. However there are many adults who make a conscious effort to strive towards the ideal as a guide for continual improvement.

It is this striving toward the idea and the universal moral drive as Empirical evidences indicate the moral drive is inherent in all humans, e.g.:

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

What makes the universal moral drive more objective is, it is represented by physical neurons within a functional system within the brain in connection to the body.

The related moral activities manifested from these objective elements are likely to vary across the inevitable different environment and human circumstances; this is the subjective aspect of morality.
However, what is critical to morality are the universal moral elements and the need for the majority to recognize the existence of these objective moral elements and not surrender merely to the varied subjective elements of morality.

There is no denial that Morality is Objective.

Analogy
Note the Analogy with the Objective Metabolic System within human nature.
It is obvious and evident the choice of food is subjective across the world due to the differences in environment, social, culture, etc. BUT there is definitely something universal and objective within the metabolic system, i.e. the universal digestive system and the universal need for the basic nutrients [carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals,] in all humans.
The same objectivity applies to the moral system within all humans that exists within the subjective moral expressions.

Social bees are like you say . Social bees' social rules are as objective as metabolic rules. But you are not a social bee you are a human individual who has lived long enough to be morally mature.
This being the case you must be responsible for your own morality whether you like it or not, and if you don't do so you are telling yourself lies.

The tradition that I was taught is the one I want to keep to, and I expect you are the same . But this is only because I don't know a better tradition.

[FlashDangerpants]

My thinking has moved on a little since that discussion.

I no longer think that all beings capable of experiencing pleasure and/or pain have the same moral standing. Nor do I think moral standing is related to current net pleasure. I am now inclined to think that a being's moral standing is proportional to that being's potential lifetime net pleasure, rather than the net pleasure they are experiencing at the moment. Suppose a child and an old lady are trapped in a burning building, and you can only rescue one of them. The child is terrified and unhappy, and has a broken leg which is very painful but mendable; the old lady is calm and not in any pain. If we decide who to rescue on the basis of their current net pleasure, we will rescue the old lady and leave the child to die. I think this would be irrational: more lifetime net pleasure can be created for the child than for the old lady, so the child has the greater moral standing. We should rescue the child and let the old lady die (sorry gran).

I think I get the idea. The old plan had an issue (in my view at the time anyway) that it followed two masters in the form of pleasure and fairness. This switch to a total factor style lifetime net pleasure blends them in a way that maintains the primary status of pleasure without discarding the broad need for equitable distribution.

Prima facie I think the change works, and probably retains everything you wanted to keep while closing down the arguments I could see that targeted your position rather than just all consequentialist positions equally.

Yes, thanks. Unfairness would analyse into arbitrary (and therefore unjustifiably) different treatment of beings with similar moral standing.

I'm having more of a problem with treatment for those who are terminally and incurably ill. Suppose we have two children, one dying from cancer, the other healthy, and can only give a treat to one of them. My intuition is that we give it to the child with cancer, for two reasons:
1. to compensate for the child's suffering
2. because the healthy child will have other chances for treats, but the sick child may not.
However, the theory appears to say that we should give the treat to the healthy one because it has higher moral standing. In the burning building scenario I think we would rescue the healthy child, but treats seem to be different. I don't know what to say about that at present.

There might be something problematic about taking a long term investment return and branding it as moral standing. A re-branding might be in order.

We have a bunch of intuitions about who deserves what that are just going to lie outside your chosen schema and you will need to perform a tricky balancing act here. Some you will absorb via reduction to your central principle, others have to go. The only thing that raise the cancer kid's moral standing is a cure for their cancer, but in general having enough compassion to want to alleviate the sadness of being terminally ill presumably enables us to function at a higher level of moral thingy generation....? Like I say, it's tricky, if you allow too many carve outs you end up like Mill, no longer arguing for the thing you started out in favour of.

[CIN]

I think I get the idea. The old plan had an issue (in my view at the time anyway) that it followed two masters in the form of pleasure and fairness. This switch to a total factor style lifetime net pleasure blends them in a way that maintains the primary status of pleasure without discarding the broad need for equitable distribution.

Prima facie I think the change works, and probably retains everything you wanted to keep while closing down the arguments I could see that targeted your position rather than just all consequentialist positions equally.

Yes, thanks. Unfairness would analyse into arbitrary (and therefore unjustifiably) different treatment of beings with similar moral standing.

I'm having more of a problem with treatment for those who are terminally and incurably ill. Suppose we have two children, one dying from cancer, the other healthy, and can only give a treat to one of them. My intuition is that we give it to the child with cancer, for two reasons:
1. to compensate for the child's suffering
2. because the healthy child will have other chances for treats, but the sick child may not.
However, the theory appears to say that we should give the treat to the healthy one because it has higher moral standing. In the burning building scenario I think we would rescue the healthy child, but treats seem to be different. I don't know what to say about that at present.

There might be something problematic about taking a long term investment return and branding it as moral standing. A re-branding might be in order.

We have a bunch of intuitions about who deserves what that are just going to lie outside your chosen schema and you will need to perform a tricky balancing act here. Some you will absorb via reduction to your central principle, others have to go. The only thing that raise the cancer kid's moral standing is a cure for their cancer, but in general having enough compassion to want to alleviate the sadness of being terminally ill presumably enables us to function at a higher level of moral thingy generation....? Like I say, it's tricky, if you allow too many carve outs you end up like Mill, no longer arguing for the thing you started out in favour of.

Agreed.

My definition of moral standing may need work. And lurking behind that is the question of how much notice to take of our supposed intuitions anyway.

Thanks for your thoughts. I hope to post further on this, but I have some thinking to do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But when you and I were nine years old we lacked the very concept of moral ideal. We were as we were---immature.

Subjective morality is what is the case whatever age the subjects are. Like it or not, the responsibility is yours . We protect nine year olds , and mental defectives , but as adults we must make our own decisions.

The moral ideal or any positive ideal is what all humans [regardless of age] strives toward without even being conscious of it most of the time. However there are many adults who make a conscious effort to strive towards the ideal as a guide for continual improvement.

It is this striving toward the idea and the universal moral drive as Empirical evidences indicate the moral drive is inherent in all humans, e.g.:

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

What makes the universal moral drive more objective is, it is represented by physical neurons within a functional system within the brain in connection to the body.

The related moral activities manifested from these objective elements are likely to vary across the inevitable different environment and human circumstances; this is the subjective aspect of morality.
However, what is critical to morality are the universal moral elements and the need for the majority to recognize the existence of these objective moral elements and not surrender merely to the varied subjective elements of morality.

There is no denial that Morality is Objective.

Analogy
Note the Analogy with the Objective Metabolic System within human nature.
It is obvious and evident the choice of food is subjective across the world due to the differences in environment, social, culture, etc. BUT there is definitely something universal and objective within the metabolic system, i.e. the universal digestive system and the universal need for the basic nutrients [carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals,] in all humans.
The same objectivity applies to the moral system within all humans that exists within the subjective moral expressions.

Social bees are like you say . Social bees' social rules are as objective as metabolic rules. But you are not a social bee you are a human individual who has lived long enough to be morally mature.
This being the case you must be responsible for your own morality whether you like it or not, and if you don't do so you are telling yourself lies.

The tradition that I was taught is the one I want to keep to, and I expect you are the same . But this is only because I don't know a better tradition.

Yes, we should be like social bees and other non-human animals i.e. acting instinctively and spontaneously in accordance to their evolved nature.
BUT unfortunately humans are unique from other non-human animals being evolved with a sophisticated sense of self-awareness and an individual ego that enable the individual[s] to deviate from his natural instincts and destiny 'necessarily' for higher goods and unfortunately also enabling greater evils.

All humans must be responsible for your evil actions in the eyes of the law or tradition.

As for morality-proper, all humans are to be responsible to develop their moral competence with the facilitation of the collective to the extent that they will act morally spontaneously and naturally without any need for coercion nor threats [e.g. of hell].
This is what is expected for humans of the future generations; it is not possible for the 'traditional' you, the current or next few generations.

[Peter Holmes]

The choice of a goal for our actions - such as individual or collective well-being, flourishing, pleasure, happiness or fairness - is subjective, as is the choice of what constitutes the goal. And objectively measurable goal-consistency doesn't constitute moral objectivity.

[Belinda]

The moral ideal or any positive ideal is what all humans [regardless of age] strives toward without even being conscious of it most of the time. However there are many adults who make a conscious effort to strive towards the ideal as a guide for continual improvement.

It is this striving toward the idea and the universal moral drive as Empirical evidences indicate the moral drive is inherent in all humans, e.g.:



What makes the universal moral drive more objective is, it is represented by physical neurons within a functional system within the brain in connection to the body.

The related moral activities manifested from these objective elements are likely to vary across the inevitable different environment and human circumstances; this is the subjective aspect of morality.
However, what is critical to morality are the universal moral elements and the need for the majority to recognize the existence of these objective moral elements and not surrender merely to the varied subjective elements of morality.

There is no denial that Morality is Objective.

Analogy
Note the Analogy with the Objective Metabolic System within human nature.
It is obvious and evident the choice of food is subjective across the world due to the differences in environment, social, culture, etc. BUT there is definitely something universal and objective within the metabolic system, i.e. the universal digestive system and the universal need for the basic nutrients [carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals,] in all humans.
The same objectivity applies to the moral system within all humans that exists within the subjective moral expressions.

Social bees are like you say . Social bees' social rules are as objective as metabolic rules. But you are not a social bee you are a human individual who has lived long enough to be morally mature.
This being the case you must be responsible for your own morality whether you like it or not, and if you don't do so you are telling yourself lies.

The tradition that I was taught is the one I want to keep to, and I expect you are the same . But this is only because I don't know a better tradition.

Yes, we should be like social bees and other non-human animals i.e. acting instinctively and spontaneously in accordance to their evolved nature.
BUT unfortunately humans are unique from other non-human animals being evolved with a sophisticated sense of self-awareness and an individual ego that enable the individual[s] to deviate from his natural instincts and destiny 'necessarily' for higher goods and unfortunately also enabling greater evils.

All humans must be responsible for your evil actions in the eyes of the law or tradition.

As for morality-proper, all humans are to be responsible to develop their moral competence with the facilitation of the collective to the extent that they will act morally spontaneously and naturally without any need for coercion nor threats [e.g. of hell].
This is what is expected for humans of the future generations; it is not possible for the 'traditional' you, the current or next few generations.

I demand you stop misrepresenting me. It is obvious we are not social bees , for heaven's sake! If you were even slightly informed about linguistics you would understand how bee language differs from human language. We certainly should not act "instinctively" we should act with reason and wisdom.Spontaneity is good but should be mixed with reasoned reflection and that is why modern kids go to school.

There will always be need for liberal education now and for the foreseeable future.
There will never come a time as long as there is a free world when the child is not in need of an environment such that he or she is taught how to be autonomous and hopefully arrive at moral maturity . Never can an objective moral code be taught as sufficient as a means of arriving at adult autonomy: objective moral codes belong in museums.
Liberal education for all is necessary for any democratic regime to work.