I want to know how a Catholic would respond philosophically, maybe point out errors or inconsistencies in my view, so that I might grow and broaden my understanding.
As I understand morality:
I believe morality is intersubjective, grounded in human nature. Morality is not “objective” the way a chicken sandwich is “objective” - that is, “out there” and separate from human cognition. Objective morality would at any rate be meaningless if this were the case. Morality only makes sense when it relates to human subjects and the shared subjectivity we each possess. It is through this shared subjectivity that we can reflect and make moral demands on each other. We all know, through reflection, that some things are wrong. This isn’t “objective” - it doesn’t have to be. All that is required is a consensus that exists regarding what is right and wrong, through agreement. Not agreement by arbitrary fiat, but by direct perception of what is good - the same way we come to the consensus of what the color red is.
Consensus does not have to be objectively factual, such as whether the earth is round or flat. There is a consensus even now that the earth appears to be flat from one vantage point. This appearance does not correspond to objective fact, but it is a perception that we can still agree on. In that it has a degree of reality on its own. In my view morality is something similar. If we stick to subjectivity, we can say something is right or wrong because we have similar intuitions about it, the same way humans have a common perception of red qualia, even when that qualia is limited to human cognition, and not strictly speaking objective.
I would argue that, on the basis of human nature, we are all the same. Our subjectivity is determined by our human essence (which isn’t infinitely malleable, as per Sartre), and so I would argue that all healthy human agents DO in fact share the same basic intuitions about morality (though of course, things like delusive thinking and mental illness may cloud our better judgments). These moral intuitions are therefore universal and factual, but they do not have to be objective.
Why should we have these oughts hard-wired in us?
An account would be, perhaps, that we are image bearers of God, if one looks at it through the Christian lens. We mirror something ontologically greater, and that’s how we justify our dignity, etc. Although, I suppose Christianity would subscribe to objective morality or moral realism, which to be honest, I’m iffy about.
Something in someone who does not share our common moral intuitions would not only be unhealthy, it would be anti-human and anti-moral, morality being inextricably tied to the human subject in a way that makes them interchangeable in a way.