Yes. People also say "this tastes good" and insist they won´t eat it - even though they don´t intend to make an objective statement. It´s just the way these words are used.
I am not sure if that is a good comparison. It is not about words and that’s the whole point. How a person reacts is a true indication of what they really believe regardless of their cognitive thoughts, ideas, views, or a change of mind. Their reaction is an emotion which overrides anything they may have said and therefore exposes their true views on things. So they may say one thing but really believe another by their reaction.
Sure people don´t like it when something is taken away from them.
This will be the same for all morals. That’s why I said that we can see whether an act is wrong or not by a person’s reaction to the situation. If stealing was a truly a subjective moral act, then you should be accepting that people steal will from you. You should be understanding that the other person views stealing as not wrong because they have a different subjective view. Otherwise, you’re not truly living what you subscribe to that people have the right to see morality differently and are denying their rights. They cannot be held responsible for what they do that may affect you.
So, therefore, subjective morality is responsible for a lot of conflicts.
And make no mistake: Even people who believe that there´s an objective morality for them to follow disagree with each other.
Is that really objective morality or subjective morality dressed up in another way as objective morality. I thought objective morality was the one absolute set of morals. There is only one truth and having several truths is a contradiction of the meaning of truth.
Because ISIS are moral objectivists? Sounds like you are shooting your own foot here.
ISIS act in contradiction of their own morals by killing their own indiscriminately, drinking and taking drugs, associating with organised crime etc. Many true Muslims say they are not acting like Muslims.
The point is because society allows subjective morals radical groups like ISIS have been able to preach their message in the western societies they are trying to destroy. It is only because the western countries have started to crack down on anyone who has hate preaching that this practice is being stopped. But it was allowed to go on for years and still does in less extreme ways because there is nothing that allows us to determine what is good and bad and say this is wrong and against our values/morals because we have to acknowledge that views different to our own have just as much right to exists even if we disagree with them. If anything that is shooting ourselves in the foot.
No, you don´t. You just claim you have.
That may be according to you. I could say that your claim that I don’t is also unsubstantiated because you do not know or have no scientific verification that there is no objective morality. In fact, the case for objective morality seems to make more sense and stand up to reason. Even many atheists support objective morality as they have come to the conclusion that we cannot deny morals are objective. But you won't find any believers in a god say there is subjective morality.
Those atheists who support objective morality just don’t believe it is from God and say that it is inherent in nature just like the laws of nature are. Anyway shouldn't subjective moralists allow people with the view that there is objective morality to sit at the table as well. Or is that an objective view that there is no objective morality. Now I am confusing myself.
And that´s exactly what we observe.
Which is part of the problem that is causing conflict between nations and people? If you look closely you will see that we act like morals are objective anyway in the end. When moral subjectivism fails we tend to start plugging the holes it leaves by bringing in rules and regulations and restricting people’s freedoms by telling what they can and can’t do. It’s all reactive. What is regarded as good and bad is continually redefined according to the politically correct brigade such as with religious and speech freedoms and we begin disallow things to the point that there is practically an objective rule anyway.
Btw. even Christianity has undergone major changes in its moral views, and even Biblegod commands different strokes for different folks.
I think you are confusing the punishments and the situations. The moral laws have remained the same, but the morals may have existed at different times where there were different contexts.[/quote] I can probably guess what examples you are thinking of and I have heard these before and they do not apply and I can show you why as well. So rather than I guess why don't you give me an example.
I can demonstrate that there exist subjective moral views, and that morality is relative.
As soon as you can demonstrate that, on top of that, there´s some objective and/or absolute morality out there, we can get talking about it.
I agreed with your first part that there exist subjective morals views but that does not mean that morals are ultimately subjective. Proving subjective and objective morality is hard as it is all about a philosophical position. There are no direct physical aspects we can scientifically test and can only support our position with indirect evidence. Nevertheless as mentioned earlier there are atheists who support objective morality because they see it as the only logical conclusion and give good support for this. Apart from this there are only the philosophical arguments. I will have to get back to the evidence as I am a bit busy and it will take a bit of research.
