Naturally, morality cannot be objective- For what object are we meant to weigh or measure to learn whether murder is bad? The closest we can come to an objective morality is to create an object that represents the subjective moral valuation of many. Famous attempts include Abrahamic texts (Torah, New Testament, Quran) the Vedas, the Latin trilogy (Illiad, Odyssey, Aeniad). By virtue of subjects electing to repeat these objects (that is, to retell a story in its agreed upon form), a subjective valuation enters reality as an object. A change in that object reflects a change in those subjects.

Thus, there becomes a sort of popularity contest that establishes whether an object is or is not representative of the collective's subjective moral evaluations. One might ask "If Columbus was so bad, how do we have Columbus Day?" to which a celebrator of Indigenous People's Day might say "I do not have this object- The same day goes by another name in my calendar, reflective of my moral objection to wearing a necklace made out of the cut off ears of indigenous children". In so doing, an object (ink on paper) has come to reflect a subject (the unknowable depths of a human mind).

A psychopath is someone whose morals are unknowable, unpredictable. Will they or won't they eat you alive? Take away the walls and laws, and determine how they'd behave on a desert island. A world without any moral objects is a world in which we are unable to distinguish the unknown from the unknowable- Does this subject not have any morals at all, or do I just not know them yet? The only way to learn (imprecise though it may be) is by objects in a shared reality, as subjectivity cannot be made real until it is too late, until I've been eaten alive.

3 points ineededapornaccount

Naturally, morality cannot be objective- For what object are we meant to weigh or measure to learn whether murder is bad? The closest we can come to an objective morality is to create an object that represents the subjective moral valuation of many. Famous attempts include Abrahamic texts (Torah, New Testament, Quran) the Vedas, the Latin trilogy (Illiad, Odyssey, Aeniad). By virtue of subjects electing to repeat these objects (that is, to retell a story in its agreed upon form), a subjective valuation enters reality as an object. A change in that object reflects a change in those subjects.

Thus, there becomes a sort of popularity contest that establishes whether an object is or is not representative of the collective's subjective moral evaluations. One might ask "If Columbus was so bad, how do we have Columbus Day?" to which a celebrator of Indigenous People's Day might say "I do not have this object- The same day goes by another name in my calendar, reflective of my moral objection to wearing a necklace made out of the cut off ears of indigenous children". In so doing, an object (ink on paper) has come to reflect a subject (the unknowable depths of a human mind).

A psychopath is someone whose morals are unknowable, unpredictable. Will they or won't they eat you alive? Take away the walls and laws, and determine how they'd behave on a desert island. A world without any moral objects is a world in which we are unable to distinguish the unknown from the unknowable- Does this subject not have any morals at all, or do I just not know them yet? The only way to learn (imprecise though it may be) is by objects in a shared reality, as subjectivity cannot be made real until it is too late, until I've been eaten alive.