Just to be clear Jeff, I want to say that I'm talking about why I believe objectivity to be the case.
That was clear. But I haven't really seen any sort of reasoned argument for it. More on that in a moment.
Some of your phrasing seemed to imply that you were speaking more practically about it "What benefit do you get from believing it?" and that's a whole different question.
Well, what benefit DO you get from thinking it?
Actually, if anything, I can understand WHY you might do it. That's the easy part. Morality just feels like it comes from the gut. I get that. Although MY gut tells me that MY morals are the ones everyone should live by and that should be objective. If you're honest with yourself, yours is probably saying the same thing. I just don't believe it for a second, and I try not to live my life as though I do. There is no evidence to back it up. Everyone has their opinions.
The answer is (as I've said before) the sniff test. Subjectivism just sounds wrong it doesn't seem correct to me to believe that no moral truths exist in actuality.
In the grand scheme of things, do you trust your gut to tell you the truth about the world, or do you trust reason, logic and evidence? I guess it comes down to which you value more in terms of truth detection.
Which (and be honest here) has a better record of truth detection. Intuition, or evidence based reasoning?
I could go to some lengths to talk about why not, and give examples. But I fear it would be mistaken for positive argument. I have no positive argument, and neither do you neither moral system is verifiable, so I've chosen the one which to me, seems more likely to be correct.
Do you disagree that our morals are our opinions about things that are more important to the way we live our lives, and that is the only thing that separates them from our opinions about colors?
You have put forth a cogent argument concerning asserting something without evidence. And following the train of thinking inthat argument will lead us much deeper into the woods. That argument follows, only so long as you grant a particular epistemology called method ism. Methodism states essentially that in order to know anything it must be proven. It is a skeptical worldview. It asks first the question "how do we know" and then "what do we know"
Skepticism isn't the denial of every possible thing. It just means I look for reasons to believe things before I look to my gut. If you were to say there was an objectively best color in the universe, I would be approaching this argument in much the same way. Isaac Asimov put it best...
“I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it.
The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."
Bolded by me. I won't believe ridiculous things without evidence. Where do you see a problem with that? Your particularism almost seems to have something against evidence... as if it's a bad thing. Why would you think that way?
The alternative to methodism is particularism. That's the view I hold. It first asks "what do we know" and then proceeds, based on that to ask "how do we know" (or "what are reliable ways of knowing) The particularist therefore is much less leery of intuitive presuppositions provided they follow to a logical end.
This sets you up for literally believing in anything as long as you can come to some sort of logical conclusion. The problem arises when you forget to take all the facts into account, or when you assume things to be fact that have not been proven. Logic applied this way leads to errors. It's what led people to think the world was flat, that the sun moved around the earth, and that supernatural beings exist. All of those are intuitive propositions that led to a logical end. They're all wrong. /shrug.
Unfortunately On particularism your argument is meaningless.
I'm quite proud to say you're right.