...is like saying "Magic made it so" or "Morality is objective because a wizard did it."

The simple answer is that [ Kim Jong Il ] makes subjective values into law and enforces them (more or less) objectively. However if you accept this then you accept that god cannot be the source of objective morality.

No, these don't 't fit at all: Wizards, Magic, or Kim Jong Il are not the basis of our reality, or the basis of what was made and what IS.

No, you're confusing a supreme authority with objectivity. At the core of it, god's morals are simply his subjective whims which you follow.

No, they're not whims, as I said, they reflect His nature, what ultimately IS.

Even if things such as love, life, we're subjectively valued and decreed by God, which could be possible (but I would doubt because of the "His nature" argument) this would be the closest thing to objective morals as far as humans can get. They aren't then in the realm of our subjective values but grounded in ultimate reality.

No one would make an argument here, either side, if they didn't believe there is an "ought" or a "right" answer to argue for. Why argue anything if YOU didn't believe something was objectively true?

We can believe in objective things that also reside in our minds.

It sounds like you only believe in physical objects, "things." My question is, WHY does anyone ARGUE, make value judgments...invoke a scoring system... where does the evaluation come from if there are only things, but no "right" or "wrong." If you say, it's my "subjective" valuation, then why argue? You sort of disqualify your self from commenting on whether morals are objective or not if you don't invoke "right" and "wrong" in an objective sense. If you say the subjective things could be actually true, you mean objectively true without intending to prove my point; objective truth, right and wrong, and hence "ethics" or "morality" are objectively grounded.

Perhaps, without a God, there is no objective truth but with God, (as most people believe, as I do) there is (this is another debate). If there is a God, the source and creator of all things, our external "point of reference," who made us, and gave us moral laws, both written on our hearts through revelation, then at least under this case, there ARE objective morals and objective truth. Because if he is the source, and origin of what IS, then he is also the objective "original," "model" and "Truth." Therefore actions that are contrary to his nature (e.g. loving, peaceful, patient, kind, self-controlled, just, merciful) AND actions or things by his DECREE: "Thou shalt Love the Lord.... shalt not not murder, etc...", these things are objectively right or wrong, no matter how subjective men may disagree.

Why do you assume that I think subjectivity and veracity are mutually exclusive?

Before I answer, how do you define veracity? Do you mean objectively true?

Said another way, are you asking "why do you think subjectivity and objectivity are mutually exclusive?"

Why can't we be friends? I'm trying to be friendly, understand you, reach common ground and have an interesting debate. Is that possible?

I think I am understanding you better and we may have common ground: is it possible that this is difference in semantics; I think I hear you say:

"morals" are the confines of subjective men, while

"ethics" are external and objectively true?

Do I hear that right?

I think there is more common ground here than first appeared:

If morality relies on external truth, doctrine, God perhaps, as you you seem to believe, and not within subjective opinions of men, then shouldn't you be arguing on the other side (the Yes side) of this debate?

What is the difference between ethics and morality, if that is germane to this topic?

Not so, objective morals extend beyond a "naturalism" or "evolutionary" perspective of "preserving the species." For example it's objectively morally wrong to commit adultery, even though it may result in a new life, and the species may do better. What if your spouse and your lover's spouse said, "it's not wrong, for us." Would you agree with them? Heck no, you would appeal to a universal and objective standard that it is wrong.

Friend, I think a lot of people like you are confused and unclear on this issue and that is why your answer is confusing if not proving my point.

Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivity

Why?

Because you gave your conclusion: "How can opinion be objective?" (Your opinion is implicitly subjective and therefore not to be trusted, a self-defeating statement.)

or it proves your belief in objective morality.

Why?

because when asked

Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true?

you said :

That is why I argued.

Also, your strong responses and reaction show you have opinions that you believe are really true, objectively in reality.

By your own admission, you say and prove your belief in objective morals so perhaps you should consider changing sides. : )

By the way, sorry I'm confused about your point or distinction: "This is not about ethics, this is about whether objective morals [exist]." What is the difference? I would contend basically one and the same, both derived from objective truth.

1) I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you can't say that everyone has their own right to their own morality.... Example; would it be okay if I a terrorist violently murdered your family, just because under his morals and religion, it's okay? I don't think you can really "live with" what you just argued, in the long run.

2) Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true? Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivity or it proves your belief in objective morality.

I'm not sure if numbers are as "concrete" as objective morals are, but...

You say "things exist," ... you mean objectively, external to perception, though our perception is subjective, we know with certainty enough to state "things exist." But if it's 3 things in a certain group or locality, that grouping of things, or the number of them doesn't exist outside of our perception or "projection"?

If that were true than wouldn't you carry out the logic to say the "things" don't really exist either?