What you are saying is that if everyone used their logical reasoning we would all have the same morals?
Ye but people's reasoning and perceptions are different.
I mean I agree flawed morals do not disprove objective reality but what substantial evidence is there to prove it does exist?
Even if everyone used their reasoning we will still get different views on morality imo.
I do see your point very much though, good post.
In theory.
This is primarily a matter of legal ethics, however, not virtue ethics. If a person believes that homosexuality is immoral, they're free to do that.
My idea of objective morality is simply one in which no individual may impose their moral standard on others by force. It is objective because it means that freedom may only be limited in order to preserve the rights of other individuals, and not on the basis of someone's subjective opinion on what is a vice or a virtue.
This, as far as I know, is the only possible objective basis for legal ethics as it is the only one that precludes constant competition and infighting between different ideologies that seek to impose their own moral standards.
That is what you alluded to when you said "people's reasoning and perceptions are different." People have different moral standards and priorities, but my idea of objective morality does not intend to eradicate subjective opinions. Rather, it is simply to serve as a basis for a society in which no one has their freedom forcibly abridged to conform to a certain standard.
In addition to that, if people live in a pluralistic society in which there are different opinions and groups, I think it helps to inculcate into people the notion of tolerance and patience with those who think differently. This is quite the opposite of a society that is controlled by a single, monolithic ideology that has no notion of tolerance and must resort to force in order to preserve the status quo.
As for your question, 'what evidence is there to prove that objective morality exists?'
I would say that 'proof' of the existence of the kind of objective morality that I believe in is the fact that such a moral system is perfectly applicable and rationally tenable. I can argue about it, explain it, defend it. It does not draw its conclusions from a religious text, it does not include seemingly arbitrary moral injunctions.
I think it's also interesting that all people, no matter their religion, do have a universal sense of equity or justice. Of course, people often don't apply the standard universally. They think that their side is justified in doing things that they'd never allow others to do.
Nevertheless, I do think that it's a general understanding that people have, which is that, for one example, you can't arbitrarily dissolve someone else's freedom or rights. There has to be some kind of justification provided, otherwise, you wrong the individual who has had their rights abridged.
I should say, however, that I don't think of it as existing in the same sense that an actual physical object exists. It's a lot more like mathematics or the scientific method in that it is simply a way of effectively managing something in the real world through the application of non-contradicting and non-arbitrary reasoning.
It is, essentially, a libertarian ethical system. It is simply to serve as a basis for an equitable and humane society. It doesn't teach people how they should live in all aspects of their life or what general attitude they should take.
Virtue ethics is different, but also interesting. I'm sure it's relevant to legal ethics in as much as a person's individual attitude and behaviour may have a positive or adverse effect on others in society. But of course, it's also about how a person should act for the sake of their own benefit.
I'd heard the idea of 'universally preferable behaviour' when it comes to virtue ethics. I think that's about right, although I don't think it's simply the fact that a perceived virtue is 'preferred' by enough people that makes it right. I think there is something objectively valuable about certain personality traits that makes them valuable and valued, rather than their value being determined simply by the fact that enough people deem them to have some kind of worth, arbitrarily.
Topic: Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions