Can you give me a good definition of "objective existence"?
Your question is an oxymoron. You cannot define objective existence because the act of defining something implies that the nature of what you define is set by you. By its very nature, objective existence is inclusive. One cannot stand apart from it to observe it and define it. Another way to put it is objective existence real while the definitions we place on parts of it are not. The very act of definition itself is artificial. A behaving "as if" condition that allows us to function. But it is not the underlying reality. It is the subjective construct over objective reality.
Does asserting an objective, absolute moral standard end all possibility of moral discussion?
"What use or benefit is a moral system that has no persuasive power; one that is, in the end, grounded in authority alone and not reason?" What's persuasive about objective morality is that if it exists it must be reasonable. Incidentally, it is only the moral objectivist that can assert a binding moral imperative because he believes there is a tangible truth value of "good" or "evil" attached to moral acts. The relativist can assert no such "ought". Objective morality is not divinely decreed (in answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma) it is derived from God's nature which is good. God can not choose his nature. EDIT: Great question! here's my best attempt at a response... It was in response to Neitzche's assertion that "everything we have come to know as good...may very well be evil." that the great GK Chesterton quipped the often misunderstood quote; "When a man ceases to believe in God he does not cease to believe in everything, rather he will believe anything." Good and evil are tangilble and recognizable and so most everyone recognizes them. Your quest for a eutopian ethical society is your properly informed and functioning conscience being drawn by Natural Law. It is a participation in the divine nature "the good". It is the law written in the heart of both theist and atheist alike. Rape isn't wrong to do because society recognizes it...Rape is wrong to do period and therefore most people recognize it. The fascinating thing about trumpeting the validity of objective morality is that the physical evidences point to the relativist stance. It is undemonstrable as the affirmation of the validity is intuitive knowledge. Once you accept the possibility that morality may be objective, I highly recommend challenging the moral teachings of the church that claims infallibilty in teaching them. ;-) Peace; Dear Dogma
Do you believe morality is subjective or objective? With examples?
It's always subjective, because what people value varies widely. In the example of "objective" morality given above, it is better to not attack a person that is not attacking you, so that both parties may continue in peace. But right there we see that value has been placed on peace. While I personally agree that peace is desirable, there are those that do not. To some people, war (or conflict in general) is an excellent way of separating the weak from the strong, thus ensuring that the strong are the ones that rule and the ones that reproduce more. On a smaller scale like theft, some believe that those who don't adequately protect their belongings don't deserve them. This could benefit the individual (and that is as far as some ethical codes go) or the society at large, making humans in general stronger by ensuring that only the fittest survive. To someone who believed this, a state of perpetual peace would be abhorrent. For every example of "objective" morality, there is a counterpoint like this. While it feels natural to believe that certain things are inherently important, like love, peace, helping those who cannot help themselves, etc, there is in fact very little if anything that is "naturally" ingrained as moral in humans. Rather, these are things we take in from different sources, like society, religion, and so on.