I contend paradoxically that objective morality does depend on the wide reflective subjectivism of David Hume and Thomas Hobbes! We contend that our considered judgments override our mere whims and tastes. I might want to party but my judgment warns me to study instead.
We inherit the moral sense rather than the sensus divinitus that Alvin Plantinga contends that make for morality. He contends that sin limits our realization of our knowledge that God is a basic item like other minds and exterior reality.
“sOur moral sense of empathy has to enlarge to a planetary ethic wherein we care for all around the planet. That is why many of us care about the overthrow of Mubarak and the Tunisian one and any that seem to come in the Middle East.
The covenant is that we owe to ourselves and others dignity and human rights and the Platinum Rule that to be consistent and rational, we have to be nice to others should we want them to be nice to us.
This overriding and these two points make for objective morality:”Such judgments are subjective in the sense that they originate in the feelings of the people making them.But they are also objective in two important ways:first,they are universal and apply to everyone;second, they are based on the principle of equity and equality of treatment. So from the fact that moral judgments are subjective, it follow neither that they vary from person to person nor that they are just’ private ideas’ in peopl’e minds.”^
Furthemore, the objectivity also lies in the consequencesof acts on people, other animals and the environment. With our moral sense we can discern that rape is objectively wrong. Of course, as John Hospers* notes, some people have no such moral sense.
Thus, we can indeed ground morality in our human conditions , needing no divine commands to ground it. And Plato exhibits the independence of morality from God in the Euthphro. Either God Himself would have to base His commands on an independent morality or else He could make rape right! Now, Aquinas errs in averring that His nature is good, because that begs the question of that nature. indeed, one cannot define, postulate or use faith to instantiate His existence anyway!
Thus, it is a non sequitur that without Him and His purpose for us, we are forlorn! We are per Lamberth’s argument from autonomy, independent beings such that contrary to that pervert Paul [ no sex as the ideal] He does not own us like a potter owns clay.