Objective morality

I didn't understand, Your Honor, there are moral questions about which there is no consensus and a clear collective feeling, so how can one talk about right and wrong? Unlike a wall that everyone knows is a wall.

First of all, you need to distinguish between saying that there are no feelings and saying that different people have different feelings. They are not the same thing. Second, I did not say that every moral question has one right answer. There may certainly be questions that have several right answers. And there is still a right and a wrong in morality (because all questions also have wrong answers, and there are questions that have only one right answer).

Thank you very much!

I will ask the second question a little differently: Where does the indication come from that this area is objective (and there is room for debate – morality) and another area is not (the taste of chocolate)? Is it only because we argue about this and dismiss the debate casually? (I do not disparage this argument that reveals that this is how we really think, but is it only that?)

Everything begins and ends with a feeling. Even the perception that when I see a wall, there is indeed a wall there is a feeling.

We need to distinguish between two levels: 1. I see a wall. 2. I have a feeling that in this vision I encounter something outside of me.

2 also exists in morality, and less in aesthetics. But in the taste of chocolate it does not exist at all. Hence the hierarchy I made.

When we make claims about the physical world, we are making claims about things that we believe exist outside of humans and are not context-dependent. When we make moral claims, do they have meaning outside of us (humans)? Can anyone argue that the fact that murder is immoral exists in the world like the fact that the law of attraction exists?
Moreover, can something be moral or immoral without necessarily having mental properties? Murder becomes immoral solely because of the intention to murder. If a stone fell and killed someone, it does not become immoral. In other words, mental properties (empathy, love, hatred, etc., which are inherently non-objective) must be involved in order to talk about morality. In my opinion, this is a crucial difference, and it reinforces the view that morality is not objective.
Regarding the debates - people argue and mix rationality even in issues that are fundamentally irrational - if I'm debating whether to ask someone I like out on a date, and maybe even consulting someone about it, I don't make the love for her or the fear of rejection rational or objective. I agree that in most cases, if people are honest, they will agree about what is moral and what is not, because we share similar basic traits. Similar but not the same!

Well, we have a deep disagreement. See the fourth notebook, Ch.