You know, I'm not going to lie. I have this strange habit of succumbing to these weird retarded fads which I usually make up my self. And well, would you look at that? Now my posts have titles! But don't worry, if you're feeling obnoxious at least you can still use me as your punching bag.

Good luck on guessing whether or not that was a joke.

Now with that said, the actual topic. Objectivity is basically a sense of morality that promotes the idea that self interest and preservation is one of the most noble deeds. And while I'd love to be coherent and disperse more facts I'm afraid I've got ADD *Or ADHD, according to my teachers* and I currently have hundreds of other things cluttered in my mind. So instead of spending a long time trying to explain everything about objectivity coherently and fail I'm afraid simply sending you a link will have to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29

Again, apologies.

My thoughts on this subject are kind of mixed. In one hand, objectivism comes across as this self serving excuse that's used to justify selfish behaviour, behaviour which destroy other people's lives for self gain. But in the other hand, objectivism may also be one of the least abstract ideals.

Self preservation has always been around, and it's always existed in all forms of life. Meanwhile my own personal beliefs, compassion and empathy are all vague human made ideals. They certainly sound nice, but they only exist vaguely, just like all other human made ideals. All sense of Morality is subjective and interchangeable, and with that in mind, can they truly be measured when their only relevent to the times which they exist?

Morality is all just a bunch of imaginary ideas invented by humans, and their worth exists only as much as the individuals faith in that ideal. Self preservation however, that's always existed and I'm pretty sure for a lot of us that's our number one priority. Essentially, it is the one idea which we can all have faith in.

So your thoughts? Either I'm becoming slightly Conservative or I'm just incredibly tired.

If you're speaking of moral objectivity, Ayn Rand's In Defense of Ethical Egoism may be exactly what you're looking for.

If you feel as though morality is relative, try reading Morality is Not Relative by James Rachels. He points out a critical flaw in the thinking that morality is relative as forwarded prominently by Ruth Benedict in Morality is Relative.

I read the paper, and with James' argument I'd want anyone else that reads it to also realize that he doesn't prove morality is not relative, just that one particular, common argument for the relativity of morality is false. I'm not sure if you were trying to say morality isn't relative, but I thought a little clarification was in order.

This would be correct, and thank you for that clarification. He merely leaves the entire issue as indeterminate.