How do you propose to show that this is objectively true, as opposed to being your opinion? Mathematics is an objective tautology. We can prove that maths theorems are correct, using mathematics. But was mathematics invented, or discovered.
I am no scientist, but as I understand it--Mathematics gives us a way to model the universe and make predictions. If we accept the proposition that Mathematics is a branch of science, then, like everything else in the scientific fields, we discover the laws. They are not invented.
Mathematicians themselves are not certain.
Ah-----precisely becasue that is a philosophical question. Might I suggest that the standards we use to discover the laws of Math and science are subjective, but the laws themselves are objective?
What about morality? Is that invented or discovered?
Yes.
It is "invented" in the sense that the standards we use to arrive at knowledge of what is true might be subjective, but the laws themselves are objective. Thus, an evolutionary biologist who concludes racism is wrong becasue societies that tolerate racism do not survive to pass on their genes reaches a correct conclusion. The Christian who believes racism is wrong because it is morally evil is also correct. Both people are getting to the same place through different paths. Though the difference, I believe is that the Christian, unlike the scientist is on a more solid foundation.
How do you account for moral views changing from one society to another?
Moral views do not change from one society to another. Sometimes moral values come into conflict. When this happens, people have to prioritize which values take precedence. Because different people are going to prioritize different values, there will be disagreement.
Are we gradually discovering that racism is wrong, in the teeth of those who believe otherwise? In what way is this gradually discovering that forbidding reasonable abortion is wrong, in the teeth of those who (like you) believe otherwise? How are you proving your moral theorem that morality is objective? More importantly, how are you proving that your views on morality are objectively correct, while mine are objectively incorrect?
Easy: the racist believes they are right until their own ideology turns on them. The adulterer argues that there are no objective moral truths until their own spouse cheats on them. The abortion supporter argues that the foetus is not a human being subject to rights based on whatever arbitrary standards they want to use--until someone wants to murder them based on the same logic.
My point? The relativist always believes in moral relativism until they are the object of the very injustice they argue is morally neutral.
It is exactly about passing on our genes, but not in the way you think. Being a social animal is in our genes. We behave in a way that makes society work. In particular the way that makes our own society work. Societies differ, so do moral views. If your society depends on slavery, slavery is a good thing. If your army fights best when homosexual lovers fight side by side, then homosexuality is a good thing.
Yes, except that "good for society" is not necessarily good morally. For those who believe in moral truth, how you are accomplishing something matters as much as, if not more than the actual accomplishment. This is why, for example, you have some who argue that we should not have dropped the nuclear bomb on Japan. Basically--their argument--is that---no matter how good the outcome, there are certain things you just do not do. When you have to cheat to win, winning isn't worth it. That is just an example---whatever your thoughts on Japan.
If your society is dominated by priests who demand human sacrifice, then warfare and the slaughter of enemy prisoners is a good thing.
Ah yes, the old "You know, like, if we could just rid ourselves of religious superstition and quackery, there would be no more wars, man. You know, like, make love, not war, man."
Yeah--the show Southpark parodied that a while back and showed how ridiculous that is. Get rid of religion and create a world of enlightened scientists---and guess what? Enlightened scientists will go to war with other enlightened scientists over things as silly as we superstitious religious quacks.
Tell me sir: if we Christians actually lived by the principles that our founder taught, would we fight wars? If EVERYONE lived by the principles of Jesus Christ, would there be wars? Religious wars just prove that Christians do not live by the principles of their founder.
There is no objectivity in this. A Spartan brought to our society would be as disgusted by our practices as we are at his. Yet Spartans were held up as the archetypes of moral rectitude of their time, infanticide and homosexual paedophilia and all. You cannot just declare "Racism is objectively wrong". You are just expressing an opinion and trying to give it more validity. Where is your evidence?
Again, turn the racist's own ideology against him---and see if he still supports racism.