Thanks, I’d like to point out though thats it’s not as impressive as it sounds. It’s maybe more of a first-and-a-half language, as nearly all culture we consume here from an early age is in English. I’m just not used to having written academic arguments in English.
Henceforth I will refer to “right and wrong” as “morality”, since it makes the prose flow better, so to speak – I’d say those terms are interchangeable, let me know if you disagree.
I think what you are trying to do is to turn objective morality into a praxiological axiom, but I don’t think that works.
You say that you don’t know how not to believe in objective morality. If the source of this morality is your inability not to believe in it, what makes it objective?
Let me explain my moral basis and adress the example of the murderous dictator:
My subjective moral basis can be simplified into two categories: emotional and rational.
My emotional morality is my biological reward system. I feel bad when some things happen, and I feel good when other things happen – just like physical pain, but more geared to the long term. These feelings are hard wired in to me and I can and do act upon them without knowing in detail how they work.
My rational morality is my own rules and perscriptions on how to live my life and treat others in order to best cater to my emotional morality. My rational morality is more or less conciously re-evalutated over time trough reason and trial and error.
I emotionaly condemn the dictator because his actions make my stomach turn.
I rationaly condemn the dictator because I would not like to live in a society that shared his morality.
I’d say your objective view raises much harder questions. First of all there is the huge task of finding what this objective moral is. Next you have to ask: Does it apply to other animals? Would it apply to other animals if they where smarter? Does it apply to mentaly retarded humans? Does it apply to featuses? Does it apply to sperm?