Is it possible to have objective view on morality and be both

yeah why not

>>3344694
Came here to say the same thing

>>3344686

Only if you want to become a "god". Have you actually read the book?

>>3344831
No.

File: Adriaen Pietersz. van de Venne - Portrait of a Fifty-Nine-Year-Old Man.jpg (341KB, 1500x1993px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1500x1993px

Yes, but in order for anything to be "objective" it can only exist within a defined space. Utilitarianism is an easy example. Hypothetical option:

1) No true objective good exists independent of humanity. (re: existentialism)

2) However, within the context of humanity there exists some neurological function F(n) where n is the set of all available options to a given situation and F determines the median "total good" from any input (this can be the sum measurements of an individual's neurological responses such as happiness or satisfaction, or governmental policy that benefits the most number of people, etc).

From this, we can infer a priori that there exists a max(F(n)) such that decision n gives the maximum amount of "total good" based on our previous definition.

The other popular moral system is Kantian, with intuitivism and subjectivism bringing up the rear. It's worth noting that a majority of academic philosophers consider morality to have some objective measure, even if we don't have a concise definition of what that would entail.