Today, I had occasion to wonder, what is objective morality supposed to do for us?
Is it supposed to tell you when to ignore your moral feelings, and act against them? Just like an attitude indicator tells the pilot when he is disoriented?
This seems like an impossibility. Your subjective morality is what you think you should do. Your subjective morality cannot assert that you ought not do what you ought to do. Therefore, if you think you ought to follow an objective/algorithmic moral code, then your subjective morality is already in concurrence, rendering the objective moral code redundant.
In other words, what grounds do we have to determine that we ought to follow a certain code, apart from our ability to determine that we ought to prefer the consequences of following that code?
This is the zone in which theistic arguments about morality collapse. These arguments desire to tie morality with God. One style of argument claims that God must exist in order to give force to morality, and that without this force, we have no reason to be moral. It's corollary is that atheists are morally challenged. But calling this argument circular is an insult to circular arguments everywhere. To start with, if we didn't care to lend our own force to moral behavior, we wouldn't have been motivated to accept the argument's premises, making the conclusion redundant. To finish with, the conclusions don't even follow from the premises.