Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

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

Who said that conduct that is more agreeable is a representation of what is morally right or wrong. People can agree on what would be considered bad and think it is right. Agreeability doesn't tell us why something is wrong.

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

That would be based on sociobiological processes (the genetic fallacy). This also tells us nothing about why something is objectively right or wrong. Only how it happened. This is only descriptive but not prescriptive. Evolution describes what does survive but not what ought to survive. Chemical and biological processes cannot give value and meaning to an immaterial thing like morality.

This comes down to the survival of the fittest. Hitler believed that killing the weak was best for humans to create a superior stronger race. Because evolutionary processes don't tell us why something is right or wrong there is no distinction between doing something horrible or doing something loving to someone. As what is best for survival changes with environments what maybe a sociobiologically ingrained belief now may change. So it may become morally good to kill people if there is not enough food or to rape in order to survive to keep the species alive.

 

[Ken-1122]

But when entire societies are going against their own subjective moral positions you begin to think is this hypocritical or an indication that there is something to why so many people act against their own moral position. If one or two do it maybe it's coincident. But when many do it over and over it becomes a representation of what they really believe.

Your example does not apply to real life. How many societies do you know of who say stealing is okay?

This was actually a true situation and no one thought the teacher was ignorant. The teacher wasn't taking any moral position but merely reflecting back to the student their own moral position to show them how unreal it was. The teacher ended up giving the student an "A" anyway as he was just making a point.

So in real life the teacher did not understand subjective morality

OK as I said generally individuals and society take a subjective position on morality. Go onto any secular debate site, social media, or check out the comments section of any article that is about someone that has done the wrong thing like a politician or celebrity. Isreal Folau is a good example. People lambasted him on social media saying how bad and wrong he was. Rugby Australia said he broke their code of conduct which was based on a moral not to discriminate.

Yes he broke the subjective code of conduct not to discriminate

Now if there are no moral objectives under subjective morality on what basis were they determining that Folue or anyone had done something wrong.

Based on personal subjective morals views

It was just their opinion and they had no way of determining if they were right objectively.

They did have a way of determining they were subjectively right though

So they had no right to say his morals were wrong.

They did have a way to say his morals were subjectively wrong

 

[Caliban]

Ok, tell me why he is wrong. Anything I have quoted from Dr Craig has been directly related to this thread. I don't want to get into a debate about him or his overall philosophy but rather the things directly related to this thread. What he says is not just held by him by the way, including nonreligious people. .

Number 1: he continues to trot out the Kalam argument after is has been throughly deconstructed. The Kalam cannot get us to a god, but he ignores the clear logic which is unkind to his claim. No expert, active in the field of philosophy (actively publishing) uses the Kalam or a version of it. If someone can find one community college professor out there doing it, I wouldn't be too surprised.

WLC's version of the Kalam looks like this:
(P1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(P2) The universe began to exist.
(C) Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Clearly P2 is not accepted by everyone. It is often argued that all matter and energy could have always existed based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. This is not my opinion by the way; I bring it up merely to show that WLC did not consider other options for P2. There are other models of how the universe may have occurred in its current presentation. P1 and 2 are highly problematic.

Even if one grants the Kalam argument; it still does not get us to a god. All it would do is show the universe had a root cause. Lawrence Krauss shows that the universe could have it cause in negative energy. Maybe, I don't know. But it is plausible giving the scientific work Krause presents--again, not necessarily my position.

There are problems with Premise 1 and 2, and, even if grated, the conclusion does not get us to a god--just a cause. Using occurs razor--that cause is likely natural since we don't have examples of the supernatural.

There are foundational problems with his other arguments also.

 

[Speedwell]

Who said that conduct that is more agreeable is a representation of what is morally right or wrong. People can agree on what would be considered bad and think it is right. Agreeability doesn't tell us why something is wrong.

What do you think the purpose of morality is?

That would be based on sociobiological processes (the genetic fallacy).

No, it's not a genetic fallacy. That's just projection on your part.

This also tells us nothing about why something is objectively right or wrong.

So what? You're the one who thinks morality has to be objective.

Only how it happened. This is only descriptive but not prescriptive. Evolution describes what does survive but not what ought to survive. Chemical and biological processes cannot give value and meaning to an immaterial thing like morality.

Again, so what? Human societies transcend biological evolution.

This comes down to the survival of the fittest. Hitler believed that killing the weak was best for humans to create a superior stronger race. Because evolutionary processes don't tell us why something is right or wrong there is no distinction between doing something horrible or doing something loving to someone. As what is best for survival changes with environments what maybe a sociobiologically ingrained belief now may change. So it may become morally good to kill people if there is not enough food or to rape in order to survive to keep the species alive.

Rubbish.

 

[stevevw]

Your example does not apply to real life. How many societies do you know of who say stealing is okay?

You have just proven my point. Under subjective morality, stealing is supposed to be OK because it is not objectively wrong. So taking something would just be an out of fashion act, a different act but not a morally wrong act. So the fact that societies don't think stealing is OK under subjective morality is a hypocritical position.

So in real life, the teacher did not understand subjective morality

No the teacher knew exactly what subjective morality is. The student had the subjective moral position in saying there is no real right or wrong and morality is up to the individual view. Isn't that the correct meaning of a subjective moral position. Well, the teacher just used the students meaning and turned it back on the student.

He marked the student with an "F" for having a blue folder because under subjective morality an individual's moral meaning is not about moral values but more about "likes and dislikes". The teacher didn't like the color blue so he marked him down. He wasn't serious but just showing the student how unreal subjective morals work by using the student's own meaning of subjective morals on the student.

Yes he broke the subjective code of conduct not to discriminate

I thought subjective morals are similar to individual "likes and dislikes" and not something we should force onto others. Its like saying Folau got the sack for liking chocolate cake because Rugby Australia said their players could not like chocolate take.

Based on personal subjective morals views

But subjective moral views have no reference to measure what is really right and right. They only have personal views and they cannot tell if something is really right and wrong. Even morals determined and agreed by a group's personal opinion can be wrong and unreliable as humans are fallible.

They did have a way of determining they were subjectively right though

But subjective right is only a personal opinion. It cannot determine what is really right or wrong. Tell what was the measuring standard they used to ensure they were truly correct.

They did have a way to say his morals were subjectively wrong

You keep saying that but as even your side has admitted there are no moral values or meaning under subjective morals. They are similar to "likes and dislikes" only. They are forcing a personal "view" or "like" onto Folau. That is taking an objective moral position because they are saying we know that the wrong Folau did was wrong beyond personal opinion. That is an objective moral position.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Speedwell]

No the teacher knew exactly what subjective morality is.

No, he didn't and neither do you. He made the same erroneous assumption that you are making, that subjective morality is always moral nihilism.

 

[stevevw]

What do you think the purpose of morality is?

Morality is about right or wrong acts and gives people moral obligations and duties towards others. But that is not the point. The point is under subjective morals whether you use human wellbeing, likes, and dislikes or to survive by getting along better there is no grounding for morals to determine why something is wrong. Under subjective morality, because there is no grounding up is down and down is up. There is no meaning and value to morals so there is no distinction between abusing a child or tenderly loving them

No, it's not a genetic fallacy. That's just projection on your part.

No its a logical argument against an incoherent position. The genetic fallacy is trying to invalidate something by explaining how it came about. For morality that does nothing to explain why something is wrong. It only explains how we know its wrong. So the fact that you can show that there are cultural and even biological influences that cause you to believe in certain moral values does nothing to undermine the objectivity of those values.

So what? You're the one who thinks morality has to be objective.

Yes thats right so I can make those claims that certain moral acts are always right or wrong. But what people are claiming under a subjective moral position is there there are no objective morals so therefore there are no moral values.

But at the same time, they appeal to moral values like empathy, kindness, and justice. Then they try to explain how they do that by appealing to sociobiological processes that speak nothing about moral values and meaning. They are trying to give value and meaning to something that cannot have value and meaning.

Again, so what? Human societies transcend biological evolution.

How do they transcend biological evolution.

Rubbish.

Please don't just dismiss this. Please explain how this is not correct. How can a biological process determine moral values objectively? If they are only based on personal opinion similar to a "like or dislike" how does this equate to moral value? How do you determine the difference between a right moral act and a wrong moral act?

If we find ourselves in a situation where there is not enough food and too many people why wouldn't killing people (the sick and weak) to reduce the population and therefore give a better chance for the rest to survive would be morally wrong under a sociobiological process?

 

[Moral Orel]

I thought subjective morals are similar to individual "likes and dislikes" and not something we should force onto others.

See how you're saying that we "shouldn't" force our views onto others? "Should" and "ought" are moral words. Under subjective morality, why shouldn't we?

 

[Kylie]

OK, so any action has to be justified as being morally good in that situation. The death penalty cannot be justified as morally good for taking money from a purse under objective morality as taking of a life for an unjustified reason is wrong. But the death penalty for certain serious crimes like murder may be justified as an appropriate punishment to ensure more people are not murdered. In other words, it upholds the sacredness of life.

And you didn't answer my question. You didn't tell me what the morally correct punishment is.

 

[Kylie]

But the claim about it being out of context is not based on a belief. It is based on logic. If there is more than one meaning for evil then it is logical that more than one meaning could apply. If the first part of the verse talks about opposites in light and dark then it is logical that the second part follows the same. The interpretation of evil is inconsistent. Therefore the opposite is something opposite to peace and calamity best fits that consistency.

Only if you think the Bible is repeating itself. That's not apparent from reading it.

But that is not the only logic. The rest of the bible says there is no evil in God. If God created evil then he is evil. That is inconsistent with the entire Bible. That is what is meant by context. You do realize you have been pleading context with your arguments. We all do and it is important.

You think there are no inconsistencies in the Bible?

If people really believed in subjective morality then they would react like certain things are really morally right and wrong. Because they believe there is no objective right and wrong and morals are only about "likes and dislike" just like food taste. So when someone does something wrong they shouldn't condemn them. Why condemn someone for liking chocolate cake for example. They are only expressing their subjective preference for something and there are no moral values involved.

What? I'm saying that people can believe that their moral views are objective even if those views are really just subjective.

Why.

I've already dealt with the teacher example.

The second example is just a case of people with a shared subjective opinion. You can't claim that lots of people having that opinion makes it objective, just as the fact that you can get a room full of Star Trek fans saying Trek is better than Star Wars makes that an objective fact.

In the third example, the existence of laws that cover moral issues again does not make those morals objective.

Guidelines imposed by companies does not equate to forcing morality on others. It is simply a case of companies not wishing people to use their companies as a billboard for certain views.

You obviously cannot see the logic here. This goes back to the logical argument posted earlier. So it is like saying that people acting like the physical world is what it is doesn't make what we see and observe what it is. We really could be brains in a vat just being what we experience.

I see the argument you are trying to make. It just isn't valid.

You can't show objectively that we aren't brains in a jar, and you can't show the existence of objective morality.

You are not seeing the logic here either. If there are only straight lines then there is no circumference that allows you to measure the different angles. There can be nothing whatsoever to allow a person to determine, workout what an angle is. Otherwise, an angle already exists as the mathematical equation. But in this scenario angles don't exist only straight lines. What your doing is sneaking the possibility for angles into the scenario through back doors When you do that you now have a comparison/opposite with a straight line. But you cannot have that in this scenario.

You know the circumference is not a straight line, right?

OK I will let you address the same question above which applies to this situation as well and then we can move on.

What question?

But if there is no objective morality to give empathy its meaning then you could not come to the conclusion that empathy is a moral value in any way, shape, or form. It won't even come close. If all we are is chemicals and biological processes then it would be just impulses, jerks, and fizzing and at best "likes or dislikes". As Dawkins puts it "there is no evil or good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference".

Why do you think we need objective morality to give empathy meaning? Why can't subjective morality give it meaning?

Acting without empathy and being callous or apathetic towards others would not be morally wrong but just be acting out of fashing, on likes based on biological processes that have been ingrained in us. So there would be no distinction between treating someone like yourself or treating them horrible. It is your giving empathy any moral "good" value that I am saying can not happen under subjective morality.

So if I see someone who is badly hurt but I do not help them because I lack empathy towards them, I'm not being morally wrong?

Your not understanding. Under subjective morality, if there are no objective morals they cannot even take a stance as that implies a "should or ought" and there are no "should or ought" if there are no objective moral values.

Why not? Why can't we say things like, "I think this is the way things should be," if there's no objective morality?

The professor/teacher is not using his or any moral tastes or position at all. He is reflecting the student's own position "that there are no moral right and wrongs and everything is subjective" back onto him. So he is pretending to take the students view to prove a point.

Yes you are. Your example specifically said that the prof marked the student down because he didn't like blue folders. What is that if not personal taste?

Then I hate to say this then why do people expect others to act in accordance with their moral views. I thought as you have just pointed out they they should not do this under subjective morals. If they do are they acting more objectively.

Because for the most part we share moral views. That can happen with subjective morality, you know.

No, I am saying hypothetically. That you may take a subjective position that stealing is OK if it allows a person to better their life if they were down on their luck for example. But when someone steals from you in that situation you react like it was wrong and contradict your moral position.

Does this show that deep inside you that you really know that stealing is always wrong?

No, it just shows that some people lack empathy.

 

[Kylie]

But life is realistic. Humans are not robots and they wouldn't just cardboard cutouts sitting at the controls of a trolley unable to do anything. You still haven't shown any situation where this is the case.

But they still only have two choices. Throw the switch or not. Your complaining about it doesn't change that.

You are saying that automated cars will either run down a person or swerve into something else causing harm or damage. How is stating the facts about automated cars also having automated brakes squirming out of it? You seem to want to create these unreal situations to prove your point.

Cars don't stop instantly, you know. They take time to stop. If a car is driving at 60kmh and someone steps out from behind a parked car five meters in front, do you think the car is going to be able to stop in time?

OK fair enough. But it seems that this situation did not comprise of intentions to hurt or kill people. By the time the controller had been told that there were houses on track 4, it was too late to divert the carts or evacuate anyone. The point is they tried everything to advert harm or death so there is no intentional breach of morals. Your trolley example wants the driver to be a dummy driver and not try anything like they have chosen the best and only option is to run down someone. That's unreal.

You think they didn't already know about the houses?

In that situation that would be the objectively right thing to do. Remembering that objective morality doesn't mean absolute morality in that we are never allowed to kill period. You keep getting objective morality mixed with absolutes. Objective morality means there is always an objectively right or wrong action in any given situation independent of human opinion. But, not that morals are set in stone for all situations as with absolute morality.

Please answer the question.

That's a false analogy fallacy (tongue twister, say that 5 times fast). Proving that there is objective morality is about whether there is something or not and not about whether there is more of one thing rather than another that already exists. So taking your sheep analogy I am only proving that sheep exist. I only have to do that once.

No.

You are making an argument of the form "All X is Y."

Specifically, you are saying X is morality and Y is objective.

My example is the same. All X is Y, I'm just using "sheep" for X and "black" for Y.

In both cases, a single example of X that is NOT Y will disprove the claim.

For Christians this is Gods moral laws that are expressed through Christ's teachings. For others, it may be whoever that transient moral lawgiver is. But the nature of objective morality would mean there is only one transient moral lawgiver.

Of course, as an atheist, I do not believe that there is a God, so that argument isn't going to convince me.

That is not how an assumption works in science. Science operates on the assumptions that natural causes explain natural phenomena, that evidence from the natural world can inform us about those causes, and that these causes are consistent.
Basic assumptions of science

Assumptions such as "All phenomena have natural causes", "nature is materialistic" and "knowledge is derived from the acquisition of experience".

That's not relevant to what we were discussing.

I'm pointing out that your idea of science is wrong. You claimed that science makes an assumption and then tries to find evidence to support that assumption. This is wrong. Science is not scientists saying, "I think this is how things are, so let's go and find evidence to support that conclusion."

No, the evidence comes later. First science makes educated guesses about something which is like an assumption based on a limited amount of information. Then they seek evidence to support that assumption. They can also make predictions so that they can narrow down what to look for.

No they don't. The evidence comes from the attempts to disprove the idea.

Science doesn't look to disprove anything. It seeks to verify something through evidence. But it is hard to prove something with a negative. For example, showing that there is no evidence for God doesn't mean there is no God. Science would have to be all-knowing to do that. That is why I say that showing one example of objective morality can verify objective morality. But trying to disprove objectively morality withy a negative (that it is non-existent in a specific situation) will not verify that there are no objective morals.

You really don't know how science works, do you?

Like I said This situation is hard to determine. But that doesn't mean there is not an objectively right thing to do in this situation. The fact that there is a child I think doesn't make much difference. people use a child to give some emotional weight to their argument. But it is still life. In certain situations, a child makes a difference such as abuse as their innocence is being taken advantage of.

That is why I say in real life people will try everything to save everyone. The train cart example you gave those involved tried to do everything and this makes a difference as they are not just willingly ploughing into people. Therefore they are doing the right thing though it may not work out they are not morally culpable.

And yet, morality being subjective explains it very nicely.

Subjective morality explains people's moral behaviour much better than objective morality.

No this does not prove anything. I have already shown why such as a negative doesn't prove anything and its a logical fallacy.

Yes it does. And no you haven't.

 

[Ken-1122]

So I made chocolate ice cream eating a moral issue. I find a stash of it and I have to decide whether I should eat it or not. Chocolate ice cream is good, so I should eat it. Same exact thing when we talk about more serious topics like murder. Murder is bad, so I shouldn't do it.

Okay let’s see how much we might actually agree on. Morality is either Objective or Subjective; we don’t get to choose. If morality is objective, people like me are mistaken and people like you are right; even though we both believe we are right. If it is subjective, the people like you are mistaken and people like me are right; even though we both believe we are right. Do you agree?

Regardless of who is right or wrong, we behave the same concerning moral issues there is no such a thing as behaving as if morality were objective or behaving as if morality were subjective. There is no rule one is required to follow depending on which side of the fence you fall on, we all act pretty much the same concerning moral issues. Do you agree?

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay let’s see how much we might actually agree on. Morality is either Objective or Subjective; we don’t get to choose. If morality is objective, people like me are mistaken and people like you are right; even though we both believe we are right. If it is subjective, the people like you are mistaken and people like me are right; even though we both believe we are right. Do you agree?

Ahhh... No. You've got it backwards. You're the objectivist because you don't really understand what it means to be a subjectivist. I'm saying it's just feelings and preferences, you're saying that you think you might be correct about what is right and wrong. You're an objectivist. Hate to break it to you.

Since you snipped 90% of my post, did you at least go read the actual definition of subjective morality? You keep calling me a nihilist, now you're calling me an objectivist, so I don't think you know what's going on. I'm describing textbook subjectivism. You don't have to agree with me, but if you don't, then you're not a subjectivist.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ahhh... No. You've got it backwards. You're the objectivist because you don't really understand what it means to be a subjectivist. I'm saying it's just feelings and preferences, you're saying that you think you might be correct about what is right and wrong. You're an objectivist. Hate to break it to you.

Since you snipped 90% of my post, did you at least go read the actual definition of subjective morality? You keep calling me a nihilist, now you're calling me an objectivist, so I don't think you know what's going on. I'm describing textbook subjectivism. You don't have to agree with me, but if you don't, then you're not a subjectivist.

On post #1552 what did I say that you disagree with?

 

[Moral Orel]

On post #1552 what did I say that you disagree with?

Did you read the definition of subjective morality that I gave you? Is that how you view morality?

 

[Ken-1122]

Ahhh... No. You've got it backwards. You're the objectivist because you don't really understand what it means to be a subjectivist.

I’ve provided dictionary definitions that are in line with what I have been telling you; Objective has to be verifiable subjective does not. Morality is not verifiable. Do you agree with the dictionary definition I provided?

I'm saying it's just feelings and preferences, you're saying that you think you might be correct about what is right and wrong.

What is the difference between feelings and preferences vs believing you are right?

Since you snipped 90% of my post, did you at least go read the actual definition of subjective morality?

The link you provided was basically someone giving their opinion. Much of his opinions I disagree with

You keep calling me a nihilist,

I never called you a nihilist, I said you are confusing moral subjectivism with moral nihilism; big difference

now you're calling me an objectivist,

No; I was making a point about a person who believes morality is objective; not necessarily you

 

[Moral Orel]

I’ve provided dictionary definitions that are in line with what I have been telling you; Objective has to be verifiable subjective does not. Morality is not verifiable. Do you agree with the dictionary definition I provided?

Objective doesn't have to be verifiable, it has to be the sort of thing that could at least in theory be verified. Subjective things aren't the sort of things that are verified. They can't be proven because they are neither true nor false. It may seem like a minor distinction, but it isn't. The origin of our universe may forever be beyond the capabilities of anyone to verify, thus unverifiable, but it is still an objective fact, whatever it might be. The best ice cream flavor is a subjective thing. There is no true best ice cream flavor.

What is the difference between feelings and preferences vs believing you are right?

I get more feelings of enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction from eating chocolate ice cream, I get more feelings of boredom, and disappointment from eating vanilla ice cream. That is why I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream because I would rather have more good feelings and less bad feelings. I don't believe that chocolate ice cream is an objectively better flavor, I know that I prefer it.

The link you provided was basically someone giving their opinion.

No, it was describing the textbook definition of what subjective morality is. If you disagree with that definition, you are not a subjectivist. The "pros and cons" section was assorted arguments for and against moral subjectivism. It was not in the slightest, "basically someone giving their opinion". If you think that's a bad source, show me a good one that is in line with whatever it is you think morality is.

Do you believe there are objective moral truths (even if we can't verify what they are) or not? And if you tell me there is such a thing as a "subjective truth" so help me...

I never called you a nihilist, I said you are confusing moral subjectivism with moral nihilism; big difference

I made a claim of what I believe morality to be; you said that my claim describes nihilism; ergo, you said that I believe morality is in line with moral nihilism. Of course, what I was describing was textbook moral subjectivity, so...

No; I was making a point about a person who believes morality is objective; not necessarily you

"If morality is objective, people like me are mistaken and people like you are right" - Ken
I am included in the group "People like you". I am in fact exactly like myself.

 

[Ken-1122]

Objective doesn't have to be verifiable, it has to be the sort of thing that could at least in theory be verified.

That’s what verifiable means! Verifiable does not require the ability to verify using current technology. Do you agree with the below definition?
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

I get more feelings of enjoyment, pleasure, and satisfaction from eating chocolate ice cream, I get more feelings of boredom, and disappointment from eating vanilla ice cream. That is why I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream because I would rather have more good feelings and less bad feelings. I don't believe that chocolate ice cream is an objectively better flavor, I know that I prefer it.

I don’t think you’ve answered the question I asked. I asked the difference between feelings and preferences (which you did describe) vs feeling you are right

No, it was describing the textbook definition of what subjective morality is. If you disagree with that definition, you are not a subjectivist. The "pros and cons" section was assorted arguments for and against moral subjectivism. It was not in the slightest, "basically someone giving their opinion". If you think that's a bad source, show me a good one that is in line with whatever it is you think morality is.

In the beginning he said:

Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective moral truths out there.
There are no objective moral facts. Therefore 'murder is wrong' can't be objectively true

With that I agree. Then he goes on describing different types of subjectivism, and how it can be good vs bad. That is where he seems to go into his opinions and where I disagree with some of his claims

Do you believe there are objective moral truths (even if we can't verify what they are) or not?

I do not believe there are objective moral truths because moral truths cannot be verified. Do you believe there are objective moral truths?

 

[Kylie]

Objective doesn't have to be verifiable, it has to be the sort of thing that could at least in theory be verified.

I'm not aware of any method we can use to verify a moral position.

 

[Moral Orel]

That’s what verifiable means! Verifiable does not require the ability to verify using current technology. Do you agree with the below definition?
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

No, actually, I find it sloppy. For instance, "beliefs" are in the subjective category. I can believe objective facts.

Try these, I find them more accurate and precise:

Objective
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
Subjective
characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

I don’t think you’ve answered the question I asked. I asked the difference between feelings and preferences (which you did describe) vs feeling you are right

When you mean "correct" please say "correct" instead of "right". Don't use the same word to mean different things interchangeably.

So you're asking what's the difference between, for instance, feeling happy and feeling correct? I don't "feel" correct. I feel happy because it's a sensation like touch and smell. I believe I'm correct because I have evidence to consult.

In the beginning he said:

Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective moral truths out there.
There are no objective moral facts. Therefore 'murder is wrong' can't be objectively true

With that I agree.

Do you believe you are correct that "murder is wrong"?