Moral subjectivists are people.
I know.
People want justice to be granted to them in courts of law when they have been wronged. For example, if you had a daughter who was the apple of your eye and your very heart, and this daughter of yours was brutally raped and beaten and left paralyzed for the rest of her life, you as a person, would want justice.
But if everyone thought like a moral subjectivist does (which you no doubt think is the only viable view because, as you say, there are no objective moral facts, which by the way is something you cannot prove because you cannot prove the non-existence of something, but I digress) then you would not be granted justice for no one could arbitrate between the rapist and you and your daughter.
You still aren´t telling me what I can´t do.
In fact, if everyone were a moral subjectivist like you, the man would not have even been arrested and brought to trial. There would be no police to arrest him. For law enforcement exists to enforce laws. Maybe you have heard of laws before?
1. Yes, and this shows me that you don´t even read my posts. I have brought laws up a few posts earlier.
2. You are still not telling me what I can´t do.
They are things you break and are punished for...you know like rape, murder etc. etc.
Yes, they are made by humans. How is it impossible for humans to make rules and laws without there being an objective morality?
But in your fantasy world where everyone determines for themselves what is, then the very idea or concept of law enforcement would not exist.
Why not?
For law enforcement carries with it inherently the idea of what is right behavior and wrong behavior. Of what ought to be done or thought and what ought not to be done or thought.
Yes, sure. Except that there needn´t be an explicit or implicit "objectively" added to this "right/wrong".
Humans have a tendency to make laws (just like OTOH they have a tendency to break them), and in the absence of objective morality they do, and different people, cultures, societies, groups, families have different rules and laws. That describes the existing world to a T.
Police exist to make sure people conduct their lives accordingly. But in your fantasy world, there would be no objective basis for determining what laws should be enforced.
No "objective" basis (not even the concept of such) is needed for humans to create laws, rules, agreements and to enforce them, in the first place.
In fact, the idea of right and wrong behavior would be non-existent.
The idea of "
objectively" right/wrong behaviour wouldn´t exist.
Remember: The question you were trying to answer was: What is it a moral subjectivist can not do, what he can´t live without being inconsistent?
By simply repeating the definition of moral subjectivism over and over you aren´t making any progress.
You would only have men's unbridled lusts and passions and preferences and desires. This is the world that Dostoyevksy and Nietzsche envisioned without an objective basis for morality.
You would have to discuss their ideas with them.
If there is no objective basis for morality, everything is permitted.
So there´d be
nothing that I could not do as a moral subjectivst.
With that little bumper sticker phrase you have just said the opposite of what you were actually out to demonstrate.
We should judge an ethical system by the character it produces in its adherents. What kind of man would a man be who had no one or nothing to hold him accountable except his own will?
That may be an interesting question but it is not relevant for the point you have been asked to substantiate.
Again you merely shift the goalposts. Try to be a bit more focussed.
(In the interest of a focussed discussions I omitted the part where you digressed into insults and personal reproaches.)
Bottom line: You still haven´t substantiated your idea that there is no way to live consistently as a subjectivist.
Try again, or better yet, already retract the statement that you have proven to be unable to substantiate in dozens of posts.
