Moral judgements are just opinions in school curricula

[Lauralea]

"Why our children don't think there are moral facts"- from the New York Times

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?smid=fb-share&_r=o

 

 

If all moral judgments become opinions people will only do what is best for themselves. If they don't get caught, anything goes. Even from a secular standpoint, I doubt this is the goal the educators have in mind. Brings to mind the Social Contract by Rousseau and some of the philosophical statements made when this country was founded.

How about the fact that without law society deteriorates and if we live in a society where it is okay to steal the possessions of others our own possessions are not safe. How about the fact that people live longer and healthier when they have social support and that those who habitually lie steal and hurt others get less social support because people don't want to be around them.

 

The Common Core standards as described here appear to do away with any objective morality and make religion an opinion. 

 

I guess the founders of this country were wrong when they wrote the following, since they said it was a self evident truth that we were created and endowed by are Creator. The Common Core says it is not true if you cannot prove it it is only an opinion- there are no self evident truths. 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. 

 

Of could it be that overzealous educators have gotten ahead of themselves.

[Aliensanctuary]

Without a foundation of honesty and respect for the lives, property, and rights of others, this country is circling the toilet, which will soon be flushed. We all know where the contents of toilets lead...

[Gerr]

Someone will cry foul, but that is the practical result of atheism and evolution.   If there is no God/Creator, then truth/morality is relative and just a matter of opinion.  That's my opinion.

[Igakusei]

Someone will cry foul, but that is the practical result of atheism and evolution.   If there is no God/Creator, then truth/morality is relative and just a matter of opinion.  That's my opinion.

 

David Hume would like a word with you. Do you know who that is?

 

There is a HUGE amount of space between divine command theory and "everything is just a matter of opinion." I think that it's more than sufficient to give people exposure to the diversity of ethical philosophy and let them find something that they find meaning in themselves. For some people, that's religion. For others, other things are more meaningful and effective. For most practical purposes, they all lead people to more or less the same place.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics#Normative_ethical_theories

[Igakusei]

Also, the top comments on the article are a good place to start. The guy is (rightfully) getting torn apart.

[Gerr]

David Hume would like a word with you. Do you know who that is?

 

There is a HUGE amount of space between divine command theory and "everything is just a matter of opinion." I think that it's more than sufficient to give people exposure to the diversity of ethical philosophy and let them find something that they find meaning in themselves. For some people, that's religion. For others, other things are more meaningful and effective. For most practical purposes, they all lead people to more or less the same place.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics#Normative_ethical_theories

I don't need the Wiki reference on Hume.  I have heard of him.  If there is no outside (divine) source of "truth", then who is to say your "truth" is any more valid than mine if they happen  to be in conflict?  You may argue about social contracts, etc., if some do not agree, then what?  Are they wrong?

[Lauralea]

The founding fathers did consider certain philosophical truths to be self evident such as the equality of men although they did not perfectly embody this in their actions. I agree students should be exposed to different ethical theories, but the curriculum as currently taught appears to undervalue all value judgments IMO. A survey of US history shows that deep seated values about the worth of individual freedom and other things are central to our nation's founding. Hopefully the curriculum will in time reflect this.

[Igakusei]

Short answer: Teaching that moral judgments are opinions does not undervalue them. There are well reasoned opinions and poorly reasoned opinions. There are opinions based in real world experience and data, and there are opinions based on nothing more than claims of authority (e.g. Gerry's response).

But you can't even begin to have this conversation, or apply moral principles to novel situations in a reasoned way, if you don't get past Gerry's dichotomy.

Is it a moral fact that it is right to try to save a man who is drowning? What about if you can't swim and he was just trying to kill you (and likely will again once you save him)? Things can get murky very, very quickly if you don't have a solid reasoned basis for your moral conclusions, and there are many valid ways to have that. Progress often happens where they interact.

[LifeHiscost]

For most practical purposes, they all lead people to more or less the same place.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics#Normative_ethical_theories

Except to bring honor and glory to God.

 

God is Love! Jesus saves! 

[fccool]

I don't need the Wiki reference on Hume.  I have heard of him.  If there is no outside (divine) source of "truth", then who is to say your "truth" is any more valid than mine if they happen  to be in conflict?  You may argue about social contracts, etc., if some do not agree, then what?  Are they wrong?

 

This is very often repeated, and it's intuitively false... and actually one of the reasons why you don't find many college students in Church once they come back and hear this whopper

 

Whether something "outside" dictating something doesn't necessitate something being true, right or wrong.   It's actually fairly obvious if you think about it just a little bit.  

 

The reason why children seem to be confused in this article is precisely because of the confusing morality presented from the religious standpoint.  I'll demonstrate a very simple example:

 

Let's say we have a strong moral statement - "Chewing gum indoors is wrong".   It obviously seems like an opinion rather than a moral law.  Why?   Because it seems like a preference that doesn't explain why, and doesn't get into any situational ethics and application of this particular "moral law".    Without proper context, it doesn't make sense.

 

A lot of religious morality is presented as morality that lacks context and background, and thus almost completely void of consequential evaluation that makes morality moral .

 

Going back to the not chewing gum indoors.   What's the difference between of the president of the US making it a law, and a God making it a law?   Let's say there is some benefit for not chewing gum indoors.  Let's say that the reason for this moral law is to make sure people don't accidentally spit it out and anger the owner.  We can religiously cite the reason, but contextually it's lacking application when it comes to situational ethics that such sweeping moral law doesn't deal with at all.

 

That's why we say that the morality is relative.   Not because some things are not wrong, but because the context shifts and the "relative" part is about the context that the black and white "God says so" part doesn't address in the complexity of any given situation.

 

Yes, cheating on a test is wrong... IN THE CONTEXT OF A CLASSROOM, or any other place where such institutional preference makes sense... in context of an agreement and mutual understanding.   If students attempts to circumvent such understanding, there's a clear line drawn as to what's considered cheating and what's not.  On our complex Calculus tests we were allowed to bring in textbooks to test.   In other classes we weren't.   In a country where I'm from, the teachers permitted some students to copy the test answers from the more advanced ones, because in their opinion, these students would still something than failing at the subject they are not there yet as far as understanding.

 

So, there's no such thing as "Absolute Morality" when it comes to the complexity of the everyday scenarios.   You may have "Don't have any God's before me" as an absolute moral, but "don't murder" is a very murky subject when it comes to what constitutes murder.   If it's a form of intentional killing, then do mercy killing count?   How about the war scenarios?  How about self-preservation scenarios and where is the line there?   It's not as simple as saying "this is murder, and this is not".   The context makes a whole a lot of difference.

 

That's why religious take on morality tends to be a joke.  Adventists gobble up those cakes on Sabbath potluck, but shrimp... God forbid!  It's a moral law!  .   There's no context.  There's little understanding.  And that's not how morality should be presented to children who we are preparing for navigating the complex world of reality.

[Bravus]

Please give me a single example of a *positive* 'moral fact'. Not 'it is wrong to...', but 'it is right to...'.

Moral absolutist arguments tend to be made only with extreme negative examples. The seeming impossibility of finding positive examples demonstrates a fatal logical flaw.

[Lauralea]

The OP has the positive fact All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalieneable rights, among them life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am not sure were I writing the article I would call them moral facts. Probably true moral values.

Love thy neighbor as thyself I would consider to be another one. Or the golden rule- do unto others. Living in a society in which we attempt to be kind is more pleasant than in a society in which anything goes- embezzlement perhaps murder- if we don't get caught.

In the context of the OP, I have lived in California and even though I lived a comfortable middle class existence, I knew someone who knew someone who was killed in a gang shooting as an innocent bystander in a car, someone who just caught a ride with the wrong guy. I had to think long and hard about where I would live because of the violent crime levels in that city. There is a big difference between saying that there are some rare instances, such as preventing someone else from being killed, that taking life may not be wrong, and saying murder is not wrong because nothing is wrong, there is no real right and wrong.

Seriously who would want to live in a society where murder was thought of as acceptable as long as you did not get caught? I am guessing only sociopaths gang bangers and psychopaths and their ilk.

I have done substitute teaching, and I have seen quite a few kids who seemed to have few values. I tried to help them by talking about the kinds of behavior that were necessary to get and keep a good job, putting desired behavior in a positive framework, or sometimes a negative one, as in "Congratulations, you would just have been fired." They actually seemed to like it.

Many young men from certain backgrounds wind up in jail for decades. Ben Carson shares how he could have been one of them. For him, a strong moral compass and a belief in God made the difference, not an empty belief, but a transformative belief. (Read his autobiography for details on how he almost killed someone as a teenager)

Pilate said "What is truth" before he allowed them to execute Jesus. Perhaps it made him feel better, that day, but Ellen White says ever after his conscience tortured him, and I believe it.  There are values of right and wrong that supersede our ideas of proof and are within the conscience of most, such as cold blooded murder. Pilate ordered the murder of someone he had just declared innocent because it was politically expedient to do so.

Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life no man comes to the Father but by me, implying that there are higher truths and they are of God.

 While I do not believe in teaching religion in the public schools, sanitizing them of all moral values is in my opinion without merit.

[LifeHiscost]

Please give me a single example of a *positive* 'moral fact'. Not 'it is wrong to...', but 'it is right to...'.

Moral absolutist arguments tend to be made only with extreme negative examples. The seeming impossibility of finding positive examples demonstrates a fatal logical flaw.

 

Wikipedia

 

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:^[1]

• Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
• Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.

Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.

 

 

I feel safe and at peace with anyone who I know will do all they can to extend and make life better for me, under any and all circumstances.

 

Psalms 119

 

…11"These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. 12"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you....John 15

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Bravus]

So, no positive examples, then? There's nothing we morally ought to do?

[Bravus]

...and those who are not moral absolutists do *not* believe 'murder is OK if you don't get caught'. They think preserving life is one of the very highest values. But they think through the hard questions of killing in self-defense, killing in defense of others, killing in war, the death penalty and all the other situations in which 'thou shalt not kill' does not provide sufficient moral guidance.

[Lauralea]

So, no positive examples, then? There's nothing we morally ought to do?

Treat others in the way you would like to be treated. Of course if someone is really off mentally this may not work as a guideline for them.

[fccool]

The OP has the positive fact All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalieneable rights, among them life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am not sure were I writing the article I would call them moral facts. Probably true moral values.  Love thy neighbor as thyself I would consider to be another one. Or the golden rule- do unto others. Living in a society in which we attempt to be kind is more pleasant than in a society in which anything goes- embezzlement perhaps murder- if we don't get caught.

 

I wouldn't call it a positive fact, neither it's a moral value.   It's a presupposition, a good sounding one, but it really doesn't mean what you think it did in context of the period that these people were writing this.

 

American Colonies existed as a form of dependent aristocracy that weren't actually doing anything other than creating a form of a aristocratic republic, which since then existed as such with lots of idealistic rhetoric which didn't actually live up to the reality.   When they were speaking about "All men are created equal"  at the time it didn't seem to apply to black people, Native Americans, Atheists, homosexuals, or even women.

 

So, it's hard to take the idealistic "true moral values" like these seriously, when it's merely a rhetoric on paper which doesn't reflect the reality of people who wrote it as a slogan.

 

But, that's besides the point here.

 

What the author of the article doesn't get is that when we are speaking about "relative morality", we are really talking about situation morality.   All morality is situational, since all morality is dealing with CONTEXTUAL proper behavior.   It's not wrong to be naked in the shower.  It's wrong to waltz naked down a grocery isle in your local supermarket.   Likewise, mere statement of it being wrong is not what really makes it wrong.   What makes it right or wrong is a consequential judgement that can demonstrate potential problems with any given behavior in that particular context. 

 

A moral proclamation is meaningless without adequate and reasonable consequential evaluation of such proclamation.... otherwise it's arbitrary.   What makes it moral or immoral are the consequences, and such can only be evaluated in context of any given situation.  Therefore morality is relative to the context you are applying it to.

 

 

In the context of the OP, I have lived in California and even though I lived a comfortable middle class existence, I knew someone who knew someone who was killed in a gang shooting as an innocent bystander in a car, someone who just caught a ride with the wrong guy. I had to think long and hard about where I would live because of the violent crime levels in that city. There is a big difference between saying that there are some rare instances, such as preventing someone else from being killed, that taking life may not be wrong, and saying murder is not wrong because nothing is wrong, there is no real right and wrong.

 

 

Here's where the fallacy lies, because a lot of times this is the type of stuff that comes from the religious perspective.   It's a complete misrepresentation of the issue here.  Saying that morality is contextually relative is VERY DIFFERENT than saying that there is no right or wrong.  

 

Seriously who would want to live in a society where murder was thought of as acceptable as long as you did not get caught? I am guessing only sociopaths gang bangers and psychopaths and their ilk.

I have done substitute teaching, and I have seen quite a few kids who seemed to have few values. I tried to help them by talking about the kinds of behavior that were necessary to get and keep a good job, putting desired behavior in a positive framework, or sometimes a negative one, as in "Congratulations, you would just have been fired." They actually seemed to like it.

 

 

Sure, and that's what education in ethics is for.  But,  I'd really like to see a single example of educational institution claiming that there is no right or wrong and that anything goes.

 

Pilate said "What is truth" before he allowed them to execute Jesus. Perhaps it made him feel better, that day, but Ellen White says ever after his conscience tortured him, and I believe it.  There are values of right and wrong that supersede our ideas of proof and are within the conscience of most, such as cold blooded murder. Pilate ordered the murder of someone he had just declared innocent because it was politically expedient to do so.

 

 

 

What does this story have to do with a subject matter at all?   In Genesis we likewise have God ordering genocide of entire populations, including women and children.   Is that a form of political expedience, or moral relativism?  Or is it a divine justice?   How about the passover story?  Does that sit comfortable with you when it comes to making moral judgement?

 

Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life no man comes to the Father but by me, implying that there are higher truths and they are of God.

 While I do not believe in teaching religion in the public schools, sanitizing them of all moral values is in my opinion without merit.

 

  Again, this is a complete misrepresentation of what's going on.  I'd like a good example of school curriculum that teaches that stealing, murder, and lying is not wrong.

[joeb]

 

Opinion O*pin"ion, n. [F., from L. opinio. See Opine.]

 1. That which is opined; a notion or conviction founded on

 probable evidence; belief stronger than impression, less

 strong than positive knowledge; settled judgment in regard

 to any point of knowledge or action.

 [1913 Webster]

 Opinion is when the assent of the understanding is

 so far gained by evidence of probability, that it

 rather inclines to one persuasion than to another,

 yet not without a mixture of incertainty or

 doubting. --Sir M. Hale.

 [1913 Webster]

 I can not put off my opinion so easily. --Shak.

 [1913 Webster]

 2. The judgment or sentiment which the mind forms of persons

 or things; estimation.

 [1913 Webster]

 I have bought golden opinions from all sorts of

 people. --Shak.

 [1913 Webster]

 Friendship . . . gives a man a peculiar right and

 claim to the good opinion of his friend. --South.

 [1913 Webster]

 However, I have no opinion of those things. --Bacon.

 [1913 Webster]

 3. Favorable estimation; hence, consideration; reputation;

 fame; public sentiment or esteem. [Obs.]

 [1913 Webster]

 Thou hast redeemed thy lost opinion. --Shak.

 [1913 Webster]

 This gained Agricola much opinion, who . . . had

 made such early progress into laborious . . .

 enterprises. --Milton.

 [1913 Webster]

 4. Obstinacy in holding to one's belief or impression;

 opiniativeness; conceitedness. [Obs.] --Shak.

 [1913 Webster]

Above is the dictionary definition of opinion.  It's based upon personal estimation.  Thus, it cannot be a solid basis for evaluating moral judgments..  I'll give an example as to why.  Yes, it's an extreme case, but to say that an opinion is a solid basis for moral judgement is also an extreme case for opinions widely vary on just about everything.. 

 

Here's my example opinion:  I hold the opinion that anything I do is OK.  In my opinion stealing from my neighbors is OK because it benefits me.  Anything that accrues benefits to me is alright and I care not how it affects others.   

 

JoeMo has a different opinion.  He believes that any action a person takes that harms his neighbor is not acceptable. 

 

Is my opinion of greater moral value than JoeMo's, or is JoeMo's opinion of greater moral value than mine?  Does one opinion benefit society more than the other one? 

[joeb]

I just have one more thing to add to this.  It's impossible for a society to survive if personal opinion is the arbitrator of that society's morals for that does nothing but ensure anarchy.  That society's foundation is nothing but shifting sand. 

[Igakusei]

Someone hasn't read the thread...

[Lauralea]

The article did say that the school  systems were teaching there was no factual right or wrong- it was just personal opinion. But in practice, most would agree they really can't follow out this belief system, because even at school it would result in chaos. So there is a dichotomy between what it is now politically correct to teach and what is in practice necessary to teach in order to maintain order in society as well as the school system. If there were no objective right or wrong, young people would be hard pressed to know why they should not do things like insider trading or shoplifting if they did not get caught.

Yes I do agree that the founding fathers were lacking in carrying out the all men are created equal rhetoric, as I pointed out earlier. I think it was more than just words though. Many of the Declaration signers died indigent due to embracing the cause of freedom from the tyrannical rule of the Crown.

[fccool]

The article did say that the school  systems were teaching there was no factual right or wrong- it was just personal opinion.

 

I think you (and the author) are caught up in misapplication of semantic meaning, which is where all of this confusion stems from.

 

Right and wrong are not facts.   These are moral judgements, and judgement is a form of propositional opinion based on facts, hence it's never truly objective.   Christian morality is not a form of factual morality.   It's a form of propositional morality, which all morality is.   For morality to be valid, one has to demonstrate the validity of the proposition in any given context.

 

For example, let's take proposition "Cheating on the test is wrong".   The proclamation is a form of propositional ethics/morality statement.   It's a opinion judgement supported by facts, and only valid in certain context where it would apply in such, where the propositional validity of such statement is only relevant in such context.   We have to define what constitutes "test" and what constitutes "cheating" prior to making it a moral proposition.   Without these contextual boundaries the statement becomes meaningless.   IN ITSELF, such constraints make morality subjective, because:

 

a )  Semantic boundaries of these constrains tend to shift and be subject to interpretation.  For example, in the above example what is the exact semantic meaning of "test" and what would constitute "cheating"?

b )The interpretation will always reside in context of definable boundaries of such morality, which may be different if context changes.  

 

A lot of religious take on morality is simply fudging with semantics of what the words "objective", "subjective", "truth", "facts", "morality"  etc... mean. 

 

I'll list just a few problems with attempting to imply that Christian morality is "objective", and thus different, because God is the source of such morality which makes it uncontroversial "factual morality".

 

1)  Religious belief is not a fact.  That's why we make a distinction between beliefs and facts.   A belief is a form of opinion.  "Bible is a word of God" is not a factual statement.  It's a belief/opinion statement.  If it was indeed a fact, we wouldn't use the word belief, and neither would Biblical authors.

 

2)  Invoking the validity of morality based on belief that God is behind the morality is essentially invoking one's opinion to justify any given morality.   Saying that "God's morals are objective morals" is essentially saying "It's my strong opinion that the moral propositions written by people 2000 years ago who claimed to get it from God are correct".   It's not objective at all, until it can be readily demonstrated to be factual... and so far it hasn't, and that's why it resides in realm of belief.

 

3)  Just because some of the Biblical morality aligns with modern morality doesn't make all of it absolute or objective.  Just because Bible says "Murder and theft is wrong" and it happens to align with our understanding of morality,  doesn't automatically mean that eating shrimp is wrong, and working on Saturday is likewise wrong by extension.

 

Morality has to be justified.  It's a judgement, which is a FORM of justified valid opinion supported by facts. It's not "just an opinion" like the title of the article attempts to minimize it.   Not all opinions are created equal (pun intended )

 

Likewise, we need to stop giving opinions a bad rep.   Opinion is a good thing.  Where it becomes problematic is quite ironic in the context of this thread - where opinion itself doesn't rest on facts or justifiable and valid reasoning, but based on beliefs and claims which can't be readily demonstrated or justified.

[fccool]

 

Yes I do agree that the founding fathers were lacking in carrying out the all men are created equal rhetoric, as I pointed out earlier. I think it was more than just words though. Many of the Declaration signers died indigent due to embracing the cause of freedom from the tyrannical rule of the Crown.

 

It's sort of like saying "Yes, I agree that the serial killer was lacking in exemplifying belief that murder is wrong, but he died defending his mother from being murdered, so he did have correct perspective on murder after all"

 

The reasons and legends behind establishments of this nation tend to be whitewashed ad infinitum, beginning with good Christian Christopher Columbus, and ending with the great founding fathers who selflessly fought off the tyranny of Great Britain to establish independence and morally just republic.

 

There actual story, if you turn to the factual historical sources... and not chauvinistic opinion about these, is quite different.

 

1)  Founding fathers were either British aristocrats, or descendents of British aristocrats who came to the new world with conquest and personal goals in mind.  They didn't necessarily come to establish "equality and justice for all", although I don't want to completely downplay some of the better goals they had and system that they established (especially the monetary one).   Many were self-made businessmen who found that doing business is much better when you are the government, and not a bunch of spoiled rich kids who inherited titles from daddy.  Thus, they essentially modeled a system in which they would thrive.   I would contend that it was and is far from fair, since it's still heavily favors aristocratic rule... which USA is to this day - an aristocratic republic (small upper-class rule).

 

2)  Around the time of the formation of the colonial US, the Britain was a constitutional monarchy largely ruled by conglomerate of Parliament, which substantially limited king's powers.  British were the good guys when they helped with colonization of Spanish and native lands, and the bad guys when they asked for some money to pay for these wars.  Looking at it objectively, the only "good guys" in all of this were Native Americans, who were unsuccessfully fending their lands from invasion and colonization.

 

 

"Founding father" worship tends to cloud the actual reality of certain facts and reasons which get lost in idealistic approach to history.   The reality is that American aristocrats were no better than British ones.  After all, they were British by descend and traditions.  The only difference was that British traditional aristocracy was heavily linked to the idea of entitlement.    American aristocracy was more leveled in nature.

 

The question still remains, whether a handful of "self-proclaimed enlightened people" should ever be directing the course for the rest of the 99.9999% of the population. 

 

In terms of "you keep what you take"... how can we ever talk about "superior morality" of the founding fathers?    Just another example of pick-and-choose morality that idealize one thing and ignore others.

 

It's a bit off-topic, but relevant IMO when we discuss idealized morality that's ascribed objective nature with some divine source behind it.

[fccool]

I just have one more thing to add to this.  It's impossible for a society to survive if personal opinion is the arbitrator of that society's morals for that does nothing but ensure anarchy.  That society's foundation is nothing but shifting sand. 

 

So, it's your opinion that opinions are nothing but shifting sand?  Maybe you should look up a definition of a paradox.

 

*Hint, every proposition or a claim is a form of opinion.  What matters is whether personal opinions happen to match reality, and are supported by facts... or these are just arbitrary statements of personal preference and personal belief that can't be rationally justified or factually supported .

[fccool]

To sum up:

 

  Yes.  Morality is a form of opinion, but it's not "just an opinion" as the article attempts to minimize such take on morality.   Morality is a consensus of a wide variety of opinions that are supported by facts and valid reasoning,  which is really what we mean by "objective".