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.

The way I see it, if I can break them, then unlike the laws of physics, they're not objective

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.

The people who believe all people should die are a self correcting problem, and soon their ideology has no base

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 being said, instinct isn't absolute but you understand when a deviation presents itself in the form of a killer, for example. What I'm talking about is how meaning is derived through survival and propagation. Objective morality in this case would be combining tribal instinct and intelligence and creating a standard by which life persists at its highest state possible

"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.

Religion laid that base as our species tried to understand the world but right now I think there is no compelling reason to believe that wasn't manifesting order in chaos

You are making a value judgement with that.

Therefore, not objective.

I'll grant you that, I suppose

I just think that objective morality is based in human compassion and a God is unnecessary and even a hindrance to that.

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

I suppose its difficult to truly define morality, because sometimes you must kill to save

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

You cant force people to have the same morals even in the most equalizing scenarios tbh

-insert Matt sounder here- DISAVOW

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

Plus looking at morals from a utility standpoint misses the point. People use it to give themselves hope, that there is meaning despite tragedy. It serves a personal psychological purpose.

Sorry, just something to consider. Lol

I gotta go drive home now but thank you for the stimulating discussion. I love this channel because of the kinds of people Matt and Blonde attract ^^

Yes! Be safe!!

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.)

Honestly I think the evidence is pointing to biological imperatives being a bigger driver of behaviour than we give them credit for

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.

Utility in terms of what though

Society benefit? Individual benefit?

That's still too broad

Oh look. SciShow released a vid called "There are More Than Two Human Sexes"
I'm prejudicial to it already.