Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

Again you are trying to squirm out of it.

I'm sure we agree that executing her for this crime is morally wrong. Likewise, I'm sure we agree that rewarding her is also morally wrong. So what can I do to punish her that is NOT morally wrong?

So are you saying that any punishment is morally wrong because that is not the case? Your daughter's punishment may be whatever you feel appropriate such as make her pay it back, perhaps in doing jobs around the house, grounding her, talking to her about why taking other people's stuff is wrong and the value of money, etc. Of course, the death penalty would be an extreme reaction.

 

[stevevw]

I think you misunderstand what I am asking.

I am not asking you what you think I would choose, or what I think the best option is.

I am asking you to use the objective standards of morality that you claim exist to figure out the best course of action.

But you're not letting me. You are trying my hands and forcing me to only have two options. Under objective morality, people would try everything to avoid anyone being killed. Their aim is not to kill one and save 5. As the best choice in a bad situation, they may decide to go down the track with the one person on it as a last resort but that doesn't mean they have intended or think it is a good idea to kill that one person. This is the worst option of a bad situation.

So I guess you could say it the person ends up running the single person down they have taken the best option to minimize the harm. But what you seem to be thinking is that objective morality means absolute morality where a person can never do a wrong and breach that objective moral no matter what. That is not how objective morality works and you can ask scholars who study morals and ethics as a specialist topic.

Well, there's the fact that autonomous vehicles (self-driving cars) will have to deal with this. If a pedestrian steps out in front of them, does the self driving car hit them or does it swerve into the next lane, hitting other cars and potentially causing a major accident in which people are killed? Self-Driving Cars Are Bringing The Trolley Problem Into The Real World

I think you are throwing in complicating issues that don't need to be there and muddying the waters. For one there isn't always diverting tracks for trolleys to change lanes and avoid running down a person so the person will be run down. Second, they are on the road where pedestrians are not supposed to be and therefore people are putting themselves in harm's way. So they are taking the risk and its not the driver's fault.

Third is they are self-driving it is obvious they will be self breaking and will immediately stop when they sense a person or object in front of them. Maybe that's what the driver in the trolley situation should have had. But then I guess they had an emergency brake but they were not allowed to use that.

But apart from that, there was a real life incident in 2003. More than 30 railway freight cars came loose and were rushing towards Los Angeles. There was no way to stop them, and they were heading for the Union Pacific rail yards where a passenger train was thought to be. To avoid this, the shunters were told to redirect the cars onto Track 4, which lead through an area with lower density housing with mostly lower-income residents. However, Track 4 was rated for only 15mph, and the runaway cars were traveling significantly faster. This would inevitably cause a derail. The train did derail and it crashed through several houses. Trolley problem - Wikipedia

OK so the people were allowed to try different things to avoid the situation though not completely successful. But I am sure they evacuated those homes as it seems they had time. If they didn't bother then that would be immoral. The point is by trying to avoid the situation they are acting morally.

And here's a report of the incident. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rel...fic_Rail_Accident_in_Commerce_California.aspx

There have also been experimental analogues to this problem. The Trolley Problem Has Been Tested In Real Life, And The Results Are Surprising

So again, I ask you, what (according to your objective morality) is the correct course of action? Is it morally better to take a direct action that kills one person, or is it morally better to not become a killer?

I just told you in the previous post that if the driver is not allowed to try anything else as you have shown in real life they do then the best option is to go down the track with the one person. That would be the objectively right thing to do in that situation.

Of course, you're guilty of this because you insist on using extreme examples, like saying murder or child abuse is wrong. As I've said before, if there really is an objective morality, then you should be able to demonstrate it with much less extreme examples.

No, I have used a cross-section of examples like stealing, getting drunk, having an affair, general misconduct.

But you have to remember once again I only need to show that there is objective morality in one example. Extreme examples get the job done quickly because they are more clear cut not because they are complicated and unreal like your examples but because they are simple and straight forward. The point is my examples though extreme are realistic and fairly common, do happen and can happen to anyone.

Of course, you haven't followed a logical argument because you haven't shown where these objective standards are established.

What do you mean where these objective morals are established.

You've just assumed they exist and then try to fit the real world into your model.

Isn't that science. Science makes certain assumptions and then finds observational evidence to support that assumption. I have shown you lived moral examples of how people react and act like there are objective morals and contradict their own subjective moral positions. This is observational evidence.

Nah, you haven't applied it. You just shown that most people would choose to take action to reduce the number of lives lost. That's consistent with what I've been saying, that people often share common moral ideas. It doesn't mean they are objective.

But I acknowledge that going down the track with a single person would be the best option under the circumstances. So now you have show how this proves there are no objective morals.

Now, here's a follow up question.

The one person who is killed is your spouse.

Do you still switch the trolley to the other track, knowing your spouse is now doomed to die? Or do you let five strangers die instead?

What does your objective morality tell you about this case?

I don't know about objective morality but I would find it hard to not switch it to the 5 people and live with the consequences. Probably would be the worst thing to do and I would end up living to regret it and my wife would say you should have taken my life.

But obviously the right thing would still be to take one life even though it was my wife than 5 people though like I said in real life I am not sure I could do that. Now can you show me how this proves there is no objective morals.

 

[stevevw]

Can you give an example?

I have given you examples IE
How someone says they subjectively believe that stealing is OK and then protest when someone steals from them. I used the blue folder example for this.

A student writes an essay saying that there is no objective right and wrong and morals are subjective. The teacher then marks his paper with an "F". The student asks the teacher how he could have got an "F" and the teacher said your essay was in a blue folder so I marked it as an "F" for failure. The student protested saying that was not fair and the teacher said I thought there were no objective right and wrong and only personal views. I happen to not like blue folders so I marked you down for that.

If you ask 20, 50, or 100 people in a room is sexually abusing a child OK and unless they are not of the right mind all will say it is morally wrong. People protest that evil exists in society, the world, and the universe like it is not their personal view but that evil is a real thing that exists. They want the perpetrators of evil to be punished and even put to death. This makes no sense if morals are subjective and there is no objective right and wrong to apply to others, society, the world, and the universe.

Organizations force their moral positions on others. Like the UN and human rights which they impose on everyone like they are the holders of what is objectively right. Campaigns that say, children, adults, and disadvantaged have rights make no sense as there is no such thing as rights under subjective morality. This is only a sociobiological idea that is different for different people and organizations and as Moral Orel has acknowledged is the same a "like or dislike". So it would be like the UN saying everyone must like chocolate cake and campaigns saying everyone has the right to not eat chocolate cake. It just doesn't make sense.

Organizations, as we have seen with Rugby Australia, Qantas, and many other corporations and politicians in disciplining and sacking their staff, are forcing their morals on others. They underpin their codes of conduct with moral values and make their employees live by this code forcing them to abandon their own subjective moral values. When organizations do this they are saying we are the holders of what is morally right and wrong and everyone else has to conform with this. Your own subjective views are wrong and you have no right to hold them.

Then we have the growing social media and debates on University campuses as a representation of how people demean, attack, and no platform anyone who has opposing moral values to them. They act like they are the holders of what is morally right and wrong and force this onto others while denying anyone to even express their subjective morals views let alone live them. Then you have the justice system who imposes morality on everyone like they know what is objectively right and wrong. Many laws are underpinned by moral values.

These examples are only a small representation of what actually happens with morally lived experience. What we see is individuals, groups, organizations, and even societies take moral positions like they are objective. People claim that society lives by subjective morality and that people have a right to their own view, that people can live how they want so long as they don't affect others. But in reality, people live like there are objective moral values.

Substituting "likes and dislikes" don't work as people have acknowledged they don't equate to moral values nor are objective. Feelings come and go and change and don't reflect the way people act with morality. Evolution doesn't work as this is a genetic fallacy. Trying to explain how morals came about doesn't tell us why something is morally right or wrong. Under this view when someone acts immoral and rapes or steals they are only acting from a sociobiological ingrains process and therefore these acts are not morally wrong.

So therefore based on the lived moral experience we are justified to believe there are objective moral values until a defeater is given that shows our objective lived experience is totally unreliable and cannot be realized at all. That defeater would have to be on par with a defeater that shows that our lived experience through our senses that tell us that the physical world is real is not true and we are some brain in a jar or being fed images of our physical world.

Sorry, I rave on. But I think I have said just about everything for me to say on this topic.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

You need agree on what can be known of God first. Otherwise, you are just talking past the other person and not engaged in actual communication.

 

[stevevw]

That a moral precept is widely, or even universally shared is not evidence that it is objective.

It is not only shared. It is demanded, imposed, and enforced onto people like those doing the imposing know that their moral position is ultimately correct and there is no room for other people's subjective positions. It is the real lived experiences that tell us that there is something within people that takes over them and pushes aside their subjective ideals and upholds a truth about moral values.

Not just that it is also the way people react when they break those morals. They act like they have broken those truths. They cannot hide it. Something affects them where they become incomplete, broken, and incoherent in some way. They may get away with it for a while but sooner or later things take their toll on their psyche.

 

[FireDragon76]

We say that morality comes from God and cannot be explained apart from God. We then point out that atheists implicitly accept God's existence by accepting moral reality. Atheists both deny God and assume God's existence.

This is a nonsense argument. Atheists don't have to be moral realists.

It is not only shared. It is demanded, imposed, and enforced onto people like those doing the imposing know that their moral position is ultimately correct and there is no room for other people's subjective positions. It is the real lived experiences that tell us that there is something within people that takes over them and pushes aside their subjective ideals and upholds a truth about moral values.

Not just that it is also the way people react when they break those morals. They act like they have broken those truths. They cannot hide it. Something affects them where they become incomplete, broken, and incoherent in some way. They may get away with it for a while but sooner or later things take their toll on their psyche.

Morality does not come from a transcendent God. It comes from the circumstances of being human.

 

[stevevw]

I don't. Maybe it's just habit / social engineering for those that do. Maybe that's the vernacular for talking about morality and it's totally appropriate, and I'm just a rebel, lol.

It can't be the result of social engineering as this is another version of the subjective moral positions people claim that are socially created. Similar to other explanations such as sociobiological processes, culture, etc. But I am not saying that socially constructed ideas don't influence people's subjective views.

But in lived experience when interacting with others when people are faced with the realities of that moral situation people seem to react the same. They protest that certain things are wrong even contradicting their socially engineered subjective moral position like something takes over them.

A classic example I read was with Richard Dawkins who we would all know is a staunch atheist and moral subjectivist. I think everyone is familiar with his quote
“there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

Yet Dawkins is not shy about condemning the evilness of religious atrocities to make a case for the foolishness of religions and belief in God. Wrong acts like religions indoctrinating children and persecution of homosexuals. All the while not realizing that he is appealing to evil like it is a real thing and taking an objective moral position by determining certain acts as wrong.

Especially with his prominent position and influence for which many people look up to he is more or less preaching to others about what he regards as morally right or wrong while at the same time declaring there are no right or wrong and God.

 

[FireDragon76]

It can't be the result of social engineering as this is another version of the subjective moral positions people claim that are socially created. Similar to other explanations such as sociobiological processes, culture, etc. But I am not saying that socially constructed ideas don't influence people's subjective views.

But in lived experience when interacting with others when people are faced with the realities of that moral situation people seem to react the same. They protest that certain things are wrong even contradicting their socially engineered moral position like something takes over them.

A classic example I read was with Richard Dawkins who we would all know is a staunch atheist and moral subjectivist. I think everyone is familiar with his quote
“there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

Yet Dawkins is not shy about condemning the evilness of religious atrocities to make a case for the foolishness of religions and belief in God. Wrong acts like religions indoctrinating children and persecution of homosexuals. All the while not realizing that he is appealing to evil like it is a real thing and taking an objective moral position by determining certain acts as wrong.

Especially with his prominent position and influence for which many people look up to he is more or less preaching to others about what he regards as morally right or wrong while at the same time declaring there are no right or wrong and God.

Dawkins is hardly the only freethinker or atheistic voice out there.

Personally, I think ethical critiques of Christianity are perfectly adequate to discredit it, and such critiques need not be grounded in a transcendent morality. Simply appealing to our own natural liberty to inquire about the true nature of reality is sufficient. You can either live as a slave, and have prelates tell you what to think, or you can engage in self-inquiry.

 

[stevevw]

The difference is that when we look at the world of physical objects, we are all in complete agreement. If I stood before you, you and I would agree on the distance between us, on the colour of the chairs we were sitting in, what country we were in, whether it was sunny or rainy, etc.
That same agreement does not happen with moral issues.

That is not what the logical argument is talking about when it is using the lived experience of the physical world. What you are talking about is a measurement of objectivity as in science. Lived experience as it implies is our experience through our senses that our physical surroundings are what they are.

You are really sitting at your computer writing your reply to me rather than being a brain in a vat that has been fed a virtual reality of you sitting at your desk writing your post to me. We can be justified in believing from our experience that we do live in this physical world as we experience because there is no defeater that can absolutely show we should not be justified in thinking that.

The same goes for our moral lived experience. We can be justified that our morally lived experience tells us and shows us through the way people react and live that there are objective moral values. Until there is a defeater of our experience that would show that our morally live experience was mistaken and absolutely unreliable that we could not realize objective moral values and duties at all.

That defeater would have to be a great as any defeater that would show our experience of the physical world is wrong and we are actually brains in a vat experiencing a virtual reality of our physical world. We so far have no defeater for either.

And who decides which is more bad than something else?

I think like other objective morality it is within us. As I mentioned telling a big lie is usually associated with other moral wrongs like deceit, greed, covering a wrong such as stealing, to gain something, etc. Telling a small lie to not hurt someone is usually associated with a good moral IE to avoid harming someone which may cause them more harm (hurt feelings, depression, unable to cope, lost friendship).

You would have to consider all the circumstances relative to what is involved, your level of trust and respect between your friend. Sometimes telling the truth is best as it may advert more harm. No one said that determining what is right and wrong was always easy. But there is always a determination.

So what's the objective value of "like"?

There is no objective value of a "like or dislike". How can you say that liking chocolate cake is objectively right.

Exactly. Moral positions only have meaning for the person who holds them.

Yes, I agree.

No, they say they disagree with that other person's morals. I have no moral problem eating meat, but I know there are plenty of vegans who disagree with me. We have different moral views because morality is subjective. There is a big difference between someone telling me that they THINK I am wrong for eating meat and someone being objectively correct when they say I am wrong for eating meat.

Eating or not eating meat is more of a convention than a moral and is only applied to a particular culture.

How can you ever view morals except through your own lens?

We all view everything through our own lens. But we can still separate that when there are objective truths to be known. Some people can still perceive physical objects differently but there is an objective truth to be found. So if they are open to finding that truth they will abandon their personal opinion and see the objective truth. The same with morals. We all have a subjective view but we can be open to finding objective morals.

Almost right. I'd have said, "You can hold your views and I can hold mine so long as we don't impose them on other people if they don't want them."

Well yes people have free will and they can choose to go along. The point is how do you convince them if it is only your opinion. It is like trying to convince a person who hates chocolate cake to like chocolate cake. There is no way you can show and then convince others about your opinion that chocolate cake is the best is objectively right.

Nah, you've just shown that most people hold the subjective opinion that rape is wrong. You've never shown that it's OBJECTIVE.
Argument from popularity is a logical fallacy, y'know.

But I am showing more than a moral wrong just being an agreed opinion. As I mentioned those who claim subjective moral positions will often contradict their own position when wronged by the moral they said were subjective. They react like it was objectively wrong and that it is always wrong. So something within and beyond them is working against their own subjective position.

If there are objective morals, then how can anyone go against them? My location is an objective fact, and so I can't just make myself appear in Milan for the weekend. My age is an objective fact, and so I can't just make myself younger. If morality is an objective fact, then how can people ignore it whenever they want?

Ever heard of free will. If there are an objective right and wrong and free will, people can choose the wrong act thus ignoring, denying the objectively right thing to do. When someone goes to steal something they usually know it is wrong and a flash of conscience comes over them. But they ignore that for whatever reason IE I need/want it and cannot afford it and therefore steal anyway.

Okay, if there is some standard of morality that exists apart from humans, then where is it? What is the source of this morality? Where does this concept of right and wrong come from?

That is a different topic. But for Christians, it is God through Jesus Christ. Christ's teachings are easily known in the New Testament. In fact, there was a time when society used Christian moral values as their guide and still do to some extent. God's laws (commands) become a Christians moral duty. The level we conform to God's standards determines how closely we are upholding God's laws.

So having a source of objective morals also acts as the measuring stick. Having an external source for morals that is perfectly good and infallible gives us confidence that this is the right best thing to do rather than basing it on fallible humans. It also brings consequences beyond this world which can motivate people to do the right thing rather than think they can get away with it.

And how can a concept be an objective fact?

It is one thing to logically support that there are objective morals and another to prove the source of those morals. It is harder to prove God or any transcendent being who people say sets the objective moral laws.

 

[Speedwell]

You say it is possible to believe that one moral precept is superior to another without requiring it to be subjective. I agree with you and if that's all your explaining then I am not disputing this.

No, I said it is possible for one moral precept to be superior to another without be OBjective.

At last, we are halfway. So if someone then takes their subjective moral position and imposes it on others by saying their subjective moral position is wrong and mine is right and you should follow mine isn't that now taking an objective position. Are they not saying my moral position is the only correct one and others should follow what I believe.

No. What I am saying is that my moral precept is going to make social interaction more agreeable to everybody than theirs.

 

[stevevw]

Dawkins is hardly the only freethinker or atheistic voice out there.

Personally, I think ethical critiques of Christianity are perfectly adequate to discredit it, and such critiques need not be grounded in a transcendent morality. Simply appealing to our own natural liberty to inquire about the true nature of reality is sufficient. You can either live as a slave, and have prelates tell you what to think, or you can engage in self-inquiry.

True but if you have to determine if something is right or wrong, good or bad as Dawkins does about religion and as you say people can do with the "true nature of reality" whatever that is. How do you know that it is objectively right or wrong to be confident enough to proclaim it to others and tell people their moral position is wrong.

 

[stevevw]

No, I said it is possible for one moral precept to be superior to another without be OBjective.

What are you using as the reference point for measuring that one moral precept is superior to the other.

No. What I am saying is that my moral precept is going to make social interaction more agreeable to everybody than theirs.

Who said this is ultimately the case. How do you determine this?

 

[Speedwell]

Christ's teachings are easily known in the New Testament.

Yes. He gave us a general rule for the construction of a subjective morality.

 

[FireDragon76]

True but if you have to determine if something is right or wrong, good or bad as Dawkins does about religion and as you say people can do with the "true nature of reality" whatever that is. How do you know that it is objectively right or wrong to be confident enough to proclaim it to others and tell people their moral position is wrong.

You overstate the need for certitude in matters of objective morality. But I understand where the impulse comes from if you have authoritarian tendencies. Authoritarianism is due to inner weakness and poverty of spirit, which many forms of religion inculcates in its followers.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes. He gave us a general rule for the construction of a subjective morality.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

 

[Speedwell]

What are you using as the reference point for measuring that one moral precept is superior to the other.

Whether the one makes the conduct of social interaction generally more agreeable than the other. How do "objective" moralists do it?

Who said this is ultimately the case. How do you determine this?

Through experience. Trial and error, most of it conducted a long time ago and since codified and inculcated through nurture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You overstate the need for certitude in matters of objective morality. But I understand where the impulse comes from if you have authoritarian tendencies. Authoritarianism is due to inner weakness and poverty of spirit, which many forms of religion inculcates in its followers.

..... oh no, here we go again!

 

[Ken-1122]

Ahh.... Therein lies the problem. No there isn't. I feel more strongly about hating murder than I do about loving chocolate, but the intensity of my feelings is the only difference. Tell me why I shouldn't murder without ultimately appealing to emotion.

So you agree with me?

 

[stevevw]

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

I don't necessarily want to get into debating the Old testament as it is another big topic. But I will just say that the interpretation you have posted is wrong and out of context. Evil in the Hebrew can be translated into several meanings such as “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” If you look at all the other versions they use these words rather than evil as in evil as a moral. This fits better as you see the first part says God makes light and then the opposite dark. The second part He makes peace and creates calamity is more consistent as that is the opposite of peace.

So? That doesn't mean it's not subjective.
I said morality is subjective. I never said that people will act as though their morality is subjective.

But isn't the way people act/react a true indication of what they really believe. So if they claim subjective moral positions and act like there are objective moral positions what is the true measure of what they believe.

How do you even do that? How do I impose my morality on to someone else?

I gave a list of examples in another post Today at 6:14 PM#1483.

I mean, that's like someone trying to impose upon me the belief that Turkish Delight tastes good.

Yes that is what I have been saying and that's what people do without even realizing it. Substitute Turkish delight with the moral and you will see what I mean in how unreal it is. If there are no objective rights and wrongs under subjective morality and they are only "likes and dislikes" then it is like imposing your tastes or likes on others when you say that they are wrong and should follow and act more like your moral position.

It would be like when a person says what that person did is evil and totally wrong. They should not be even thinking or doing stuff like that. Everyone knows that this is wrong and that is right. You could change it to
What that person likes is evil and totally wrong. They should not be even be liking or eating stuff like that. Everyone knows that liking that is wrong and preferring this is right.

No, I'm not comparing it to a straight line. I'm measuring the angle.

But how do you know its a crooked line (an angle) without a straight line? I think we have gone over this part before.

People can behave as thought their subjective opinion is an objective fact even though it's still a subjective opinion.
Trust me, I've seen enough of the Kirk vs. Picard arguments to know this.

Fair enough. They can do that with themselves. But when the expect others to do the same and impose that they should behave the same way it is then making your behaviour right for others as well. And that is what people do.

First of all, a person can have empathy even if it's not objective.

Secondly, of course, they're gonna contradict themselves. Because it's SUBJECTIVE. It's not set in stone! A person's views can change!

But this is different to stopping and reasoning and thinking about it and coming to a conclusion based on evidence/logic that the opposite thing is right. The person holds a conviction that something is subjective. It is not just about changing minds. It's exposing the truth about what they really believe in a moment when they are off guard and react.

Not just that like Dawkins example people proclaim that subjective morality is all there is and therefore should behave like that and not force their morals onto others. That is not just a change of mind but a moral stance. They are not even aware that they live a contradiction morally.

And once more: People can act like their morality is objective, but that doesn't mean it really is objective. It just means they're acting like it is.

So go back to the blue folder example. Is the student just acting like people do or does this example expose his hypocrisy and show how unreal people are when they claim certain things but in reality (when applied to real situations) it doesn't work?

But people DO act like that. The empathy one person feels is different to how the next person will feel it.

And ONCE MORE, people acting like their morals are objective doesn't mean the actually ARE objective. People act like subjective opinions are objective fact all the time.

And therefore the way they act is not a true indication of what is going on. Didn't you acknowledge earlier that under subjective moral positions people should only apply their moral views to themselves?

 

[Ken-1122]

I have given you examples IE
How someone says they subjectively believe that stealing is OK and then protest when someone steals from them.

Reasonable person believe stealing is wrong. To say it’s okay then protest when done against you makes you a hypocrite; not a subjective moralist

I used the blue folder example for this.

A student writes an essay saying that there is no objective right and wrong and morals are subjective. The teacher then marks his paper with an "F". The student asks the teacher how he could have got an "F" and the teacher said your essay was in a blue folder so I marked it as an "F" for failure. The student protested saying that was not fair and the teacher said I thought there were no objective right and wrong and only personal views. I happen to not like blue folders so I marked you down for that.

That would be an example of an ignorant teacher who doesn’t understand objective vs subjective. This teacher apparently is under the false impression that objective wrong is somehow superior or more meaningful than subjective wrong; an obvious example of the blind leading the blind such a person should not be in a position of teaching.
The rest of your rant you keep making the same mistake over and over again so I don’t feel a need to comment on each mistake with the same response.
Care to try again? Please provide an example of somebody who believe morality is subjective, yet talk about morals as if they were objective.