I define an objective morality as "An ought that is self evident to all observers" and so anywhere where there might be room for disagreement (and there is room for disagreement in all moral situations) then there can be no moral law for that situation

yes

Then applying the operational definition of morality, “It is moral for an agent to perform an action if that action achieves a result desired by that agent” do we then have “There is no single action that achieves a result desirable by all agents”?

So, by your definition of an objective morality, it does not exist, correct?

I haven't found one yet but bingo I don't think it exists (which is why I told you to go check that title, I'm a nihilist :joke: )

No bingo. Your definition defies itself.

how so?

I define an objective morality as "An ought that is self evident to all observers" and so anywhere where there might be room for disagreement (and there is room for disagreement in all moral situations) then there can be no moral law for that situation — khaled

Khaled I don’t think that’s a useful notion of morality, as it is clearly false. Do you think that’s what other people mean when they use the word “morality”?

there are already universal "ises" such as "something exists". It is impossible to disagree there. There could be a universal ought. There is no reason to assume there can't be. I just haven't found one

there is room for disagreement in all moral situations thus far* sorry

Khaled I will say that if someone came to you claiming morality to mean exactly the definition you provided, you should have no trouble demonstrating they are wrong.

Or rather, that their morality doesn’t exist

yes. Morality entails objectivity. Ask a religious fundamentalist about morality and they tell you theirs is the only correct one. Ask a law maker about morality and they tell you theirs is the only correct one, etc. Most people mean objective morality when they say morality

But if someone claimed the operational definition of morality, you may be able to make them take a moral relativism position.

I'm perfectly fine with the operational definition but trust me most people are not (because most people are religious) since the operational definition implies relativism. Should slavery be legalized? According to the operational definition, maybe, it IS very operational (or at least it could be if implemented properly)

Ah, but I don’t think a Christian would claim precisely the definition of morality you provided. I don’t think they typically believe that their morals are self evident to everyone. They may instead claim a definition like “A moral action is what my God says one ought to do”

Can you demonstrate this?

give me a moral situation that you think offers no room for disagreement

Use one of the situations you've already mentioned.

In which case demonstrating that their form of morality doesn’t exist would be a matter of demonstrating that their god does not say one ought to do anything. Probably the popular route to take to achieve this would be to argue that their god doesn’t exist and therefore cannot say one ought to do anything. Would you agree with this?

ok
Killing baby Hitler

Pro: you save millions of lives
Con: you take an innocent life

Which one of these is OBJECTIVELY better? Neither. People debate this all the time

no BUT they would ALSO believe that anyone who doesn't believe in their God is wrong ergo they still effectively believe in objective morality

The problem is that you are "God" here. In this thought experiment, you already know about Hitler and how terrible he was.

What does this thought experiment show?

Yes they likely will still believe in their god regardless of what argument you put forward.

It’s been an enjoyable conversation khaled and noble. I’m going to bed. I hope you both have a good night/day

another situation is abortion. For abortion to be legal or illegal requires we determine the rights of a fetus. Is a fetus a human? There is no easy answer to that, it depends on your definition of human which is arbitrary. You can define human as conceived cell, fetus capable of feeling pain, born child, etc... There is no way to distinguish one of these logically. It is up to the individual and is thus subjective. Morality is not objective because each case we found so far has had some form of disagreement irreconcilable by logic. I have tried to find a purely logical basis for morality but failed.

And even had I succeeded in finding a purely logical basis of morality (Kant apparently did but I haven't read much Kant) there still comes the question of "Ought one to use logic". See, the answer to that question is not a logical yes or no, it is up to the individual still. And there will ultimately be people that choose to answer in the negative and are they wrong? No. On what basis could you possibly make that judgment

Here is the long not so formal but a bit more formal version
P1: The application of logic requires premises
P2: Any conclusion the application of logic leads to is true if the premises are true
P3: There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise
(ex: in order to refute the premise "all humans are green" one must accept the premise "visual perception is more reliable than this idiot" and the premise "I don't see green humans")
P4: A premise cannot determine it's own truth value or if it can then none have been found so far that do so and are useful
P5: There is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used in an argument
P6: Consequently there is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used to determine the truth value of a premise
C: Every premise is true if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value
C: Every conclusion is valid if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value

Also just found this if you're looking for something a bit more poetic


In the end there is a why to which no answer is possible. In fact, from why to why, from one step to the next, you get to the end of things. And it is only by travelling from one why to the next, as far as the why that is unanswerable, that man attains the level of the creative principle, facing the infinite, equal to the infinite maybe. So long as he can answer the why he gets lost, he loses his way among things. 'Why this?' I answer, 'because that," and from one explanation to the next I reach the point where no explanation is satisfying, from one explanation to the next I reach zero, the absolute, where truth and falsehood are equivalent, become equal to one another, are identified with one another, cancel each other out in face of the absolute nothing. And so we can understand how all action, all choice, all history is justified, at the end of time, by a final cancelling-out. The why goes beyond everything. Nothing goes beyond the why, not even the nothing, because the nothing is not the explanation; when silence confronts us, the question to which there is no answer rings out in the silence. That ultimate why, that great why is like a light that blots out everything, but a blinding light; nothing more can be made out, there is nothing more to make out.

Eugene Ionesco

It's the distinction between what is, a concern of logic, and what you should do, a matter of what's called ethics/morality. They're not the same and the tools that work with one are misused on the other. But there is in logic an ethics, and in ethics a logic, so with care bridges between them can be built.