Hey, I've got a friend in a state institution who is being told to go through "mandatory" LGBTQ+ "Ally" training. He doesn't want to at all. Up to and including getting lawyers involved. Who would it be good for me to get him in contact with? It may be the sort of thing that as long as it won't be too expensive he is willing to write off the job entirely.

He is *very* pissed at this training.

And would this be the sort of thing I should throw Matt's way?

At the moment there is no story. He is trying to be proactive.

In a month, maybe.

He is staff at a state institution. As in an organization that is primarily run/supported by the state.

So the DMV would be a state run institution. (Well, that one might be federal, I'm not sure.)

I'm being intentionally vague per his request.

Another way to look at it, without some objective source of morals, morals can not be objective. A reason for the morals like "the preservation of mankind" is not an objective source. Any reason is to at least some degree arbitrary.

Because as soon as you end up in a situation where you are debating pro vs con, you are in the realm of subjectivity.

Because you can be confident that no single reason will be agreed upon by everyone.

Case in point, "the preservation of mankind" would have people who disagree because they believe that mankind is a cancer on the earth and should be eradicated.

Thus, the only way to have objective morals is for said morals to come from an entity that is omnicient.

Therefore, if you believe there is no omnicient entity that has given a set of rules/morals to individuals you are stuck in a situation where ultimately morals have to be treated like religion.

Else you are fooling yourself and creating a religion of a sort.

And if you have a problem with that, chances are you need to take a deep look at your own philosophy and reasoning.

"Said entities are inherently immoral from where I stand." That is a subjective statement.

"Objective morality in this case would be combining tribal instinct and intelligence" Also subjective.

You are making a value judgement with that.

Therefore, not objective.

Do note, if there is no godlike entity, all morals are subjective. Therefore, arguing that *any* morals are objective is pointless.

What would be a far better argument is to argue that a certain set of morals has better utility for a certain goal.

Of course, you *also* have to argue that said goal is desireable or even the most desireable goal.

And the closest you could get to saying a set of morals is objective is to prove that the goal that drives the morals has *always* and *always will be* the most desireable goal, and secondly that said morals are the best way to reach that goal and *have always been* the best way.

That is by no means an easy task.

But, if an omnicient entity exists, most of that work is handled by saying "the entity said this is the way to live".

And I would argue that you *can* look at morality from a utility standpoint and not miss the point.

You just have to start with the goal of said morals.

That has generally been the disagreement with utilitarians, people disagree with their metrics for utility and thus their end goal.

(Because they derive their metrics *from* the end goal.)

TL;DR, don't try to argue that a certain set of morals is objective, at best it is an impossible task, at worst a task that has no benefit.

Instead argue the utility of a set of morals.

Kuja, I think you are stuck on the term utility as though it only comes from utilitarianism.

In order to argue the utility of a set of morals, you *have* to argue the goal of the morals. A part of that *is* arguing who does and should benefit from said morals.