Does objective morality exist?

and what planet are you from?

Frank, what is objective but what is put to test by action in phenomena? Since judgment is action, and action is objective than every judgment can be thought of as objective. However, what happens when two people disagree about a moral judgment?

One person says its morally wrong to worship Satan, the other says it should be the only thing done. Than an objective conflict exists, and so this moral stance becomes subjective. When then would it become objective. What is wrong? How do we measure or encounter wrong.

Really, we should question what treatment leads to an objective cure, for all wrongs in the world, of the self, that cause devastation and illness. Either from action or natural phenomena such misfortune can be objectively mended for the greater good.

Morality and ethnics should all be directed toward the good, health, and wealth of civilization, and be scientifically centered thereby real consequences can follow from research projects and then run through subjective democratic approval or rejection. As is the case of abortion, communism vs. capitalism, and stem cell research.

Such primitive ideas are hard to assimilate and stifle comprehension of the goals of the work of science.

Take care.

Josh

Let's say for argument's sake that it does. How, then, would one go about determining if a particular moral law was objectively true? (That is, true in all cases, for all people everywhere, throughout all of history.)

Simple consensus can't be used, because what the majority of people consider "moral" has varied widely by society and through time. Not too long ago in human history, slavery and genocide were both considered acceptable. Now they are regarded with disgust.

Also, religious texts can't be used either, because religions also vary widely in what they consider "moral". Even within a single religion you can get many interpretations resulting in many different moral systems. Religions, despite claims to the contrary by their adherents, are not objective anyways. They are all ultimately based on faith.

I would argue that there is no means for determining the objectivity of any moral code. Thus, even if objective morality did exist (which I have seen no evidence of), we have no way of determining it, thus the answer of "no" to your question wins by default.

P.S. to above answerers: laws and law-givers are not objective. They both vary by geographical region, and over time. And it is not hard to find examples of laws that could easily be argued are immoral.

rules that claim to be both objective AND clear definitions of morality certainly exist. Can any rule ever be totally objective? Is there such a thing as relative morality?

and the beat goes on.

Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you (Confucius) is, arguably, the basis for all moral judgment . . . yet, of course there are semantic difficulties with this as well.

the rest, as they say, is just commentary.

Yes morality is objective. Any morality purporting to be non-objective is something different.

If anything is to be legitimate, legitimacy must be objective... if not for an objective moral, there is simply no moral at all.

Like without a subject? I think if you take away the conscious subject, and that includes animals, then everything is just lifeless things and morality or the cause of morality doesn't even come up.

Morality is point of view specific.

What looks moral and correct to an Israeli usually looks anything but to a Palestinian

Love and blessings don

If you name something as the object, yes. For instance a law-giver.

Relative to the individual or to the society?

Of course.... laws.