Where does morality come from?

[Kylie]

Gee do I have to do everything. Here is my answer from post #1566. You must have either missed it or dismissed it. You asked how To determined it was objective and I said. How is that not answering your question?
it would be more morally right to send the trolley down the track with the one person as there is less risk of killing more people. Either way, in your scenario someone is going to be killed. So better to kill one person that 5. Multiple killing is worse than a single killing.

First of all, you have not explained HOW you determined that it is better to kill one person than five.

And your statement would seem to suggest that this is always the case, but would you kill one 12 year old in order to save the lives of five 90 year olds?

I have already done this. We are going around in circles again. First, for Christians, God's moral laws are the measuring stick for what is right and wrong. In every situation, there is an objective right and wrong that is outside human personal opinion. So in the situation, with the train, there had to be an objectively right or wrong thing to do associated with God's moral laws. This is similar to how any post-incident tribunal would have certain laws and standards to measure things.

A question:

Are God's moral laws right simply because God says them, or are they right because God is incapable of giving any laws that are wrong?

The people deciding which way the train would go either done the right thing or not according to God's law in that situation. But you have to determine if a wrong was committed and what wrong was committed first. OK, I will leave it there as I can see you have continued the scenario below.

Some people would say that it is always wrong to take a deliberate action if you know that action will result in a death.

It appears there were poor work practices that caused the incident. I think there was a moral obligation/duty to ensure the safety of others so if poor work practices were the reason then a moral wrong to uphold human life has been committed in this situation. Sometimes an unrelated act can lead to harm and the death of another and the person is still accountable. The point is though under subjective morality none of this would matter as there is no real moral obligation and duty to uphold life.

Irrelevant. The situation is what it was. You can't claim it doesn't count because you think it should have been different.

It seems the trolley scenario has been criticized for exactly the things I was saying. That it is an unreal situation that forces humans to forgo all empathy and attempts to do everything they can to save human life and turns them into a mathematical calculation like a robot who must act a certain way which is not being a human. This criticism is from the same place you got your so-called real-life trolley example from WIKI.

Criticism
In a 2014 paper published in the Social and Personality Psychology Compass,[25] researchers criticized the use of the trolley problem, arguing, among other things, that the scenario it presents is too extreme and unconnected to real-life moral situations to be useful or educational.[59]

Brianna Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs go even further and assert that the thought experiment is not only useless but downright detrimental to human psychology. The authors are opining that to make cold calculations about hypothetical situations in which every alternative will result in one or more gruesome deaths is to encourage a type of thinking that is devoid of human empathy and assumes a mandate to decide who lives or dies. They also question the premise of the scenario. "If I am forced against my will into a situation where people will die, and I have no ability to stop it, how is my choice a “moral” choice between meaningfully different options, as opposed to a horror show I’ve just been thrust into, in which I have no meaningful agency at all?"[60]
Trolley problem - Wikipedia

You say it's unconnected, despite the fact that I showed you how it will have to be dealt with in regards to autonomous cars, and despite the fact I showed you an example of it that happened in real life.

And another criticism claims that the person has no meaningful agency at all? In one choice, five die. In the other choice, one dies. The first choice results in four extra lives. Is that not meaningful? You've been saying it is, how can you now embrace a criticism that says it isn't?

Ah, I see now. But I am not claiming that all morality is objective. As I said earlier there can be both subjective and objective morality. I am only claiming that there is objective morality independent of humans. That I only have to show once.

This doesn't seem to make sense. If there is some objective morality independent of Humans, why doesn't that apply to all morality? Are there two different kinds of morality? If so, can you explain how we can determine which category of morality a particular issue falls into?

That's a different proposition than proving if there is objective morality at all.

If there is objective morality at all, then you should be able to tell me what that objective morality says about a particular moral issue.

You are right that all situations should have an objective moral position.

WOAH! Hold on there!

You just told me, "I am not claiming that all morality is objective."

If you agree that some (but not all) moral issues are subjective, how can those subjective issues still have an objective moral position?

But proving objective morality in all situations is not necessary for proving that objective morality exists. But we have been going through some individual situations and I have been giving individual situations where people take an objective position. That would take a much longer time to do.

Once again, the fact that lots of people share a moral position does not mean that moral position is objectively true.

No, your attributing ideas and words to me. I have not said that all morality is objective. I said that there is also subjective morality. So both objective and subjective morality can exist. I have also said that in any given situations there will always be an objective moral right or wrong. Or that morality can only be determined objectively. But you are twisting what I said by saying that all morality is objective. I don't deny that there is subjective morality.

Okay, I'll use your own words.

"All situations should have an objective moral position."

That is impossible if some morality is subjective.

Morals can not operate in isolation just like laws. They need a system of morals.

Morals need a system of morals?

And do the morals in that system of morals need a third level layer of morals as well? That seems infinitely recursive.

So proving one objective moral means there are others within a system of objective moral values.

Why? The presence of one does not mean there MUST be others.

IE proving that moral kindness is objective true also proves that unkindness is true. It also proves other moral values like generosity, justice, love, etc as they are derivatives of kindness. You cannot be objectively kind while having injustice or hate at the same time. That would negate kindness. So proving one moral value automatically supports a system of moral values.

You still haven't shown that any of these are objective.

Is it objectively morally right to try to resuscitate someone who has been electrocuted?

But I am the one who made the claim that I only need to prove one objective moral to prove that objective morality exists. I never said anything about proving objective morality exists in every single situation. You turned it into that and changed the goalposts.

Once again, I'll remind you of your own words.

"All situations should have an objective moral position."

 

[Ken-1122]

That doesn't make sense as the theories say that it was the beginning of space, time, and matter. Before that there was none.

What scientific theory are you aware of that says before the expansion of the singularity (big bang) time, space, and matter did not exist?

 

[Speedwell]

That doesn't make sense as the theories say that it was the beginning of space, time, and matter. Before that there was none.

What theories are those? The theories I am aware of describe the universe back to just after the event which has come to be called the "big bang" and are unable to reach any conclusion as to what happened or what existed before that. "Science says the universe came from nothing" is a lie.

 

[Ken-1122]

Your feelings are part of your 5 senses, again, they are a physical sensation. The same sort of physical sensation you get when you touch something, that's why you feel them and they're called feelings.

Your emotional feelings don’t come from your 5 senses, they come from your thoughts/mind

I don't remember the words "Comes from" in either of the definitions I provided. What does it mean to "come from non-thought"?

I was paraphrasing. It says objective has a reality independent of the mind. That is what I meant by “non-thought” whereas subjective is often of the mind; meaning “thought”

Correct always refers to objective facts. I have no idea where you got the idea it possibly couldn't. You provided a definition for "correct" for Pete's sake. If "Murder is wrong" is correct, then "Murder is wrong" is true. There is no other way to parse that.

Remember when you asked me to no longer use correct instead of right to avoid confusion? I was using the term out of context due to your request. Correct does not apply to moral situations, right does.

You don't experience negative emotions when you're treated unfairly? That's really your claim? Am I speaking to one of a handful of people on the planet that doesn't experience emotions?

I wasn’t responding to when I am treated unfairly, I was responding to things that I see that are unfair. There are a lot of things I see that are unfair that does not apply to me, nor has any emotional effect on me

 

[Speedwell]

Your emotional feelings don’t come from your 5 senses, they come from your thoughts/mind

I was paraphrasing. It says objective has a reality independent of the mind. That is what I meant by “non-thought” whereas subjective is often of the mind; meaning “thought”

Where does the superego fit into that?

 

[Caliban]

It’s unlikely you’ll convince an atheist there’s a God from this point. They’ll believe morality evolved for survival (although it usually works against survival) and will be blind to anything else.

We are not blind, we need compelling evidence to believe impossible claims. The concept of the Trinity, for example is logically impossible. The evidence would need to overcome that problem. Don't call us blind, we see just fine and don't appreciate insults.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We are not blind, we need compelling evidence to believe impossible claims. The concept of the Trinity, for example is logically impossible. The evidence would need to overcome that problem. Don't call us blind, we see just fine and don't appreciate insults.

No, it's not logically impossible. For it to be logically impossible, we'd have to identify exactly what it is that each of the members of the Trinity 'is' in their respective full composition-----------and none of us knows that. So, we don't know if there is a contradiction or not.

 

[stevevw]

Agreed, because we can measure what we perceive to be the real world, and we all get the same results, from the biggest things to the smallest things. From the most significant parts of the universe to the most insignificant parts. That's why we consider it to be objective.
If morality was objective, we should get the same absolute consistency of results, from the biggest moral quandaries to the smallest issues of morality. And yet we don't.

I think I have already explained that this is not how the logical argument works. You need to remember that it is a logical argument and not a scientific test of physical objects. It is not about measuring objects to verify they are there. It is about whether you and the objects are really there in the first place to measure them rather than being a brain in a jar thinking you are measuring objects in some virtual world. So because there is no defeater or counter-evidence that you are a brain in a jar, you are justified to believe you are really in this reality measuring objects.

It is the same for objective morality. We can be justified to believe our experience is also a true representation of morality (not actually measuring objective morals but just our experience of them). Because there is no defeater that shows any experience of objective morality is totally unreliable and can prove there are absolutely no objective morals we are justified to believe what we experience is a true representation of our moral experience.

I have posted showing many examples of how people act/react like there are objective morals. People believe that certain morals are always wrong and they live that way. Many experts in sociology, psychology, and philosophy acknowledge that there are objective moral values. Non-religious people also acknowledge that there are truly right and wrong moral acts that are not subject to human opinion.
Morality Is Objective
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective
There Is Objective Morality In Nature
There is Objective Morality in Nature | Center for Inquiry
Intuitionism teaches three main things:

• There are real objective moral truths that are independent of human beings.
• These are fundamental truths that can't be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything except other moral truths.
• Human beings can discover these truths by using their minds in a particular, intuitive way.

BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Intuitionism

People live as though there are objective morals. So what? The fact that people live like morality is objective doesn't mean it is objective. I've said this to you so many times I've lost count. Are you deliberately ignoring me?

No and I keep repeating that lived moral experience is a true indication of morality. It goes back to the logical argument I have posed and you still haven't come up with a logical defeater for that. Disputing something doesn't prove anything. You have to give some defeater to the logical argument that we are justified to believe that morals are objective based on our lived moral experience. We use this form of support for arguments in other areas. It is legitimate for proving something.

Yes, and that inner sense of right and wrong is SUBJECTIVE.

But this inner knowledge (intuition) says that we all know that certain acts are always morally wrong regardless of subjective morality. They contradict subjective morality. They take over people who think morality is subjective. They hijack people's views and beliefs. people cant deny them and when they do people know they are wrong and out of step with the truth. It's like if someone said it is Ok to sexually abuse a child rather than pick them up tenderly and love them. People would look at you like there is something wrong with you.

So? Just because liking is subjective, doesn't follow that what is liked is objective.

That's right. "likes and dislikes" say nothing about what is moral true (objective). So when someone says I think subjectively that stealing is wrong that is more or less saying I don't like stealing. Just like they would say I don't like chocolate cake. There is no distinction. Stealing is only truly wrong when it is objectively wrong independent of human opinion.

Of course, the issue is how you define "horribleness."

Horrible is horrible. Usually means people don't like it.

In the same way, how do you define "rightness" when it comes to morality? Your response to the trolley problem seemed to suggest you think it's about saving the most no matter what. But how have you determined that is the best way to do it? You've NEVER explained your procedure for reaching those decisions.

Yes, I did. I went through the process but you kept saying stop making excuses. Believe it or not, you have to establish that a wrong has been done in the first place and not just assume that every time something wrong happens to someone that someone is to blame. Then you have to determine their culpability (degree of guilt) similar to a court.

Just because it is objective morality doesn't mean there is a blanket rule and we should treat every situation the same. Jesus says on the judgment day everyone will be judged according to their deeds. That implies there will be accountability for we need to determine accountability. I explained that in part in my previous posts.

I also explained how having a reference point which is for Christians God's moral standards we have a measuring stick to determine what is a right or wrong act. But you don't have that with subjective morality but only personal opinion. So all this protesting about what is the criteria for determining what wrong is done is an illusion and waste of time under subjective morality because there is no independent reference point.

There are plenty of people who eat just fine without killing animals to do so.
So given that we do not need to eat animals, is it moral to breed animals solely for the purpose of killing and eating them? Yes or no.

It is moral. God told his people to herd animals for eating. In fact, cattle were a big part of God's creation of animals for eating. Jesus parables talk about killing a pig or calf for a celebratory feast such as when the prodigal son came home the father put on a big feast.

And once again you are ignoring me. How many times have I told you that an idea does not become objective just because lots of people happen to share it?

Well, then we may as well agree to disagree because that is the main and only support for objective morality. If I cannot present this there is no sense continuing. Anyway, you keep saying that this doesn't prove objective morals but you still haven't backed up that claim. You still haven't given a defeater for the logical argument.

No, people are not capable of seeing things without seeing things through the lens of their own life.

I agree but that doesn't change the fact that if objective morals are true and within all of us that everyone's lens will be tainted by this fact. They may deny this, they may call it something else but they will still know that certain things are always wrong. The difference with subjective morality is that it will still be wrong despite their subjective morality.

So like I said they may claim there are no right and wrongs or morals are only "likes or dislikes" but they will react like morals are always wrong in certain situations and are more than just "likes or dislikes". They won't be able to help it, something in them will take over and cause them to be in conflict when they deny the truth.

That doesn't show what you claim it shows because that kind of behavior is perfectly possible with subjective morality.

That kind of behavior is not possible under subjective morality. That is why I keep pointing it out. If a person claims subjective morality then they are saying that there are many different moral views. None are really right or wrong so everyone can have their views. Live and let live more or less.

But condemning people and demanding they should do this or not do that, ought to do this and ought to do that is not a subjective position. They are saying people can't have their own subjective view and must be like them. Stop believing and liking what they thing/view is moral and follow my morals. That is not subjective. I gave you examples. Gee.

Wow, I don't know how you figure this, but it's just wrong. Subjective morality does not mean people are going to change their opinions about morality every five minutes.

I never said every 5 minutes. I used the example that under subjective morals people shouldn't be concerned about anything being right or wrong as there are no objective right and wrongs. Everything is an opinion. The sign that says don't steal is an opinion. So people should just go and steal something and not worry about other people's opinions because they are not really right.

But people stop and hesitate, think it's wrong, contradicting their subjective moral position. They change their mind again and think ah so what I'm going to take it anyway as I want/need it. Then they feel guilty again for doing it. But they shouldn't be going through any of that as they haven't done anything wrong under the subjective moral system.

So killing babies is morally right, is it?

Under subjective morality, it seems to be.

And here we go.
You believe in God and so you think that if there is a God, there MUST be objective morality. And so you go out of your way to try to show there is an objective morality, even though you keep repeating things I've said are wrong.

No its the other way around. Because there is objective morality there have to be moral standards outside humans. There has to be some sort of transcendent entity who makes the moral laws. I have explained this earlier. Christians like myself happen to think it is God but it could be some other entity. That doesn't matter so much for proving objective morals as you can do that without a God. Your acting like you have just realized this. Didn't I tell you all this earlier?

 

[Moral Orel]

Your emotional feelings don’t come from your 5 senses, they come from your thoughts/mind

Nope. You're just wrong. I could link to psychological papers demonstrating this, but instead, I'm going to give you a link to a dictionary since dictionaries simply document common usage of words. The fact that feelings are physical sensations is common knowledge.

physical sensations associated with emotions - synonyms and related words | Macmillan Dictionary

Remember when you asked me to no longer use correct instead of right to avoid confusion? I was using the term out of context due to your request. Correct does not apply to moral situations, right does.

Hahaha. If the word didn't apply, then the answer to the question, "Do you believe 'Murder is wrong' is correct?" is "No". You're just trying to weasel out of your claim now.

I wasn’t responding to when I am treated unfairly, I was responding to things that I see that are unfair. There are a lot of things I see that are unfair that does not apply to me, nor has any emotional effect on me

Okay, so then you do feel negative emotions at unfair things, just like I said, but perhaps not every single unfair thing that ever happens.

 

[Moral Orel]

As I've already said, saying that morals are "correct" or "incorrect" is applicable IF AND ONLY IF morality is objective.

I get that we agree, but you called it a hangup of mine on wordplay, so it seems like you think it's no big deal.

 

[Moral Orel]

What are you trying to prove? That moral can be equivalent to likes or feelings. Similar to the Shemp example is that right.

I'm explaining that morals are simply likes and preferences even if people think there is something objective about it all. I'm showing that even if people realize it's all subjective, life is going to go on just like it does now. People can and will still do the things they've always done.

I think I see what you are trying to say. That a person can still tell others what to do based on their likes or dislikes therefore that negates claims that people are acting like there are objective morals by imposing or forcing their moral values on others.

I think that most people do act like morals are objective, I'm showing that they don't have to. It isn't necessary to act that way and we can still accomplish the same goals.

Yes, but isn't the robber forcing the teller to do something a "should", you should go along with what I like or else. He is saying you should do what I do, what I want you to do. That is now taking an objective position.

Not with a "should", but he is using a "should/if". We can make objective statements by adding to them.

Under subjective morality, you can't say, "One shouldn't murder". However, even under subjective morality, it is an objectively true statement that "One should not murder if they want to avoid prison". That statement doesn't mean that there is anything actually wrong with murder, only that there are consequences to the action that people subjectively dislike and avoiding the action of murder avoids the subjectively unpleasant consequences.

Your situation isn't really about "likes and dislikes" as though everyone is living free and allowing everyone to freely choose to do whatever.

Part of living free and doing what you want is to not allow other people to live free and do what they want.

But none of that shows that it is really the right thing to do, thus morally right.

Only moral objectivity talks about what is really the right thing to do. I get that moral subjectivity isn't emotionally satisfying.

 

[Caliban]

No, it's not logically impossible. For it to be logically impossible, we'd have to identify exactly what it is that each of the members of the Trinity 'is' in their respective full composition-----------and none of us knows that. So, we don't know if there is a contradiction or not.

There are many doctrinal confessions in the Christian faith; here is on from the Heidelberg Confession that deals with the concept of the Trinity:


25.

Q.

Since there is only one God, 1

why do you speak of three persons,

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

A.

Because God has so revealed himself in his Word2

that these three distinct persons

are the one, true, eternal God.

· 1.Deut 6:4; Is 44:6; 45:5; 1 Cor 8:4, 6.

· 2.Gen 1:2, 3; Is 61:1; 63:8-10; Mt 3:16, 17; 28:18, 19; Lk 4:18; Jn 14:26; 15:26; 2 Cor 13:14; Gal 4:6; Tit 3:5, 6.

As constructed above, the trinity violates the Law of Identity. There have been attempts to reconcile this contradiction, but I don’t see how it works.


Are you claiming the construction of the Trinity IS possible because we cannot know the full composition of its members? Of course, that is not a positive argument. It is not an intellectual failing of mine to withhold belief in a failed logical construction where the argument includes special pleading, where maybe there is more information we are not privy too.

 

[Moral Orel]

But another person will not feel bad. They will not feel anything or even may feel successful or thrilled that they got away with something if it benefited them. It happens all the time. So none of this is a justified measure of morality. It is harder for a person to self-sacrifice and easier to be selfish and put self first. So if there is no ultimate moral accountability why should someone not look after themselves first if all there is only one short life and this world.

Because we are a social species with empathy, when we see others feeling happy it causes us to feel happy. So we do good things for others because it causes us to feel good. When we see others feeling sad, it causes us to feel sad. So we don't do bad things to others because it causes us to feel bad too. There are some rare folk who lack empathy, so I'm speaking generally here, not about every single human. And to further complicate things, we have the ability to rationalize things and convince ourselves of things that aren't true. So if we convince ourselves that some action of ours will not cause someone else to feel bad, even though that action will cause someone else to feel bad, empathy won't kick in and we can do that thing guilt free.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

We are not blind, we need compelling evidence to believe impossible claims. The concept of the Trinity, for example is logically impossible. The evidence would need to overcome that problem. Don't call us blind, we see just fine and don't appreciate insults.

One doesn’t fall in love with a spouse by studying anatomy. Just so one doesn’t come to know God but understanding his nature.

 

[Caliban]

One doesn’t fall in love with a spouse by studying anatomy. Just so one doesn’t come to know God but understanding his nature.

Actually, I met my spouse...we went out for coffee. I bought her a ring; I actually knew the size of her finger. God is a concept you cannot measure, take out for coffee, or find any compelling evidence of.

 

[Ken-1122]

Where does the superego fit into that?

What do you mean by superego?

 

[Ken-1122]

Nope. You're just wrong. I could link to psychological papers demonstrating this, but instead, I'm going to give you a link to a dictionary since dictionaries simply document common usage of words. The fact that feelings are physical sensations is common knowledge.

physical sensations associated with emotions - synonyms and related words | Macmillan Dictionary

That's the opposite; those are examples of physical pains coming from emotions; not emotions coming from the physical

Hahaha. If the word didn't apply, then the answer to the question, "Do you believe 'Murder is wrong' is correct?" is "No".

The question "Do I believe murder is wrong", is something I agree with. However "correct" is not a word i would use when answering such a question.

Okay, so then you do feel negative emotions at unfair things, just like I said, but perhaps not every single unfair thing that ever happens.

For some unfair things I may feel emotions, other unfair things I do not.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's the opposite; those are examples of physical pains coming from emotions; not emotions coming from the physical

When did I ever say anything about "emotions coming from the physical"? I said they are physical sensations. Those butterflies you feel in your tummy when you're nervous? That is the feeling of anxiety.

The question "Do I believe murder is wrong", is something I agree with. However "correct" is not a word i would use when answering such a question.

Okay, I'll let you walk back your claim if you explain this to me. You say right/wrong is okay when we're talking about morals. So saying murder is wrong is okay. When you say "We both believe we are right" about what we think about morals, now you don't mean correct, so what do you mean?

For some unfair things I may feel emotions, other unfair things I do not.

That's what I said. How does the fact that you don't feel negative emotions every time something is unfair but you do feel negative emotions sometimes when something is unfair discount my estimation of your moral decision making. What reasons do you have to declare "unfairness is wrong" other than "unfairness makes me feel bad sometimes"? Remember, you already declared murder is wrong because of fairness, so there must be something "wrong" about being unfair. What is it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There are many doctrinal confessions in the Christian faith; here is on from the Heidelberg Confession that deals with the concept of the Trinity:


25.

Q.

Since there is only one God, 1

why do you speak of three persons,

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

A.

Because God has so revealed himself in his Word2

that these three distinct persons

are the one, true, eternal God.

· 1.Deut 6:4; Is 44:6; 45:5; 1 Cor 8:4, 6.

· 2.Gen 1:2, 3; Is 61:1; 63:8-10; Mt 3:16, 17; 28:18, 19; Lk 4:18; Jn 14:26; 15:26; 2 Cor 13:14; Gal 4:6; Tit 3:5, 6.

As constructed above, the trinity violates the Law of Identity. There have been attempts to reconcile this contradiction, but I don’t see how it works.


Are you claiming the construction of the Trinity IS possible because we cannot know the full composition of its members? Of course, that is not a positive argument. It is not an intellectual failing of mine to withhold belief in a failed logical construction where the argument includes special pleading, where maybe there is more information we are not privy too.

I appreciate your attempt to lay this out here, BUT since this isn't the forum in which to do this AND I'm not 'Reformed' (to put it mildly), referencing the H.C. isn't going to mean a whole lot to me. So, rather than get into a needles argument over the Trinity here, especially since I don't think that understanding it is always and in every degree an absolute necessity for salvation, I'll just let it rest. Besides, why knock a fellow moral objectivist when I can avoid it. And more besides, we had such a good conversation months ago over aspects of epistemology and the Christian faith, why ruin that either.

Peace.

 

[Kylie]

I think I have already explained that this is not how the logical argument works. You need to remember that it is a logical argument and not a scientific test of physical objects. It is not about measuring objects to verify they are there. It is about whether you and the objects are really there in the first place to measure them rather than being a brain in a jar thinking you are measuring objects in some virtual world. So because there is no defeater or counter-evidence that you are a brain in a jar, you are justified to believe you are really in this reality measuring objects.

It is the same for objective morality. We can be justified to believe our experience is also a true representation of morality (not actually measuring objective morals but just our experience of them). Because there is no defeater that shows any experience of objective morality is totally unreliable and can prove there are absolutely no objective morals we are justified to believe what we experience is a true representation of our moral experience.

I have posted showing many examples of how people act/react like there are objective morals. People believe that certain morals are always wrong and they live that way. Many experts in sociology, psychology, and philosophy acknowledge that there are objective moral values. Non-religious people also acknowledge that there are truly right and wrong moral acts that are not subject to human opinion.
Morality Is Objective
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective
There Is Objective Morality In Nature
There is Objective Morality in Nature | Center for Inquiry
Intuitionism teaches three main things:

• There are real objective moral truths that are independent of human beings.
• These are fundamental truths that can't be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything except other moral truths.
• Human beings can discover these truths by using their minds in a particular, intuitive way.

BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Intuitionism

No and I keep repeating that lived moral experience is a true indication of morality. It goes back to the logical argument I have posed and you still haven't come up with a logical defeater for that. Disputing something doesn't prove anything. You have to give some defeater to the logical argument that we are justified to believe that morals are objective based on our lived moral experience. We use this form of support for arguments in other areas. It is legitimate for proving something.

But this inner knowledge (intuition) says that we all know that certain acts are always morally wrong regardless of subjective morality. They contradict subjective morality. They take over people who think morality is subjective. They hijack people's views and beliefs. people cant deny them and when they do people know they are wrong and out of step with the truth. It's like if someone said it is Ok to sexually abuse a child rather than pick them up tenderly and love them. People would look at you like there is something wrong with you.

That's right. "likes and dislikes" say nothing about what is moral true (objective). So when someone says I think subjectively that stealing is wrong that is more or less saying I don't like stealing. Just like they would say I don't like chocolate cake. There is no distinction. Stealing is only truly wrong when it is objectively wrong independent of human opinion.

Horrible is horrible. Usually means people don't like it.

Yes, I did. I went through the process but you kept saying stop making excuses. Believe it or not, you have to establish that a wrong has been done in the first place and not just assume that every time something wrong happens to someone that someone is to blame. Then you have to determine their culpability (degree of guilt) similar to a court.

Just because it is objective morality doesn't mean there is a blanket rule and we should treat every situation the same. Jesus says on the judgment day everyone will be judged according to their deeds. That implies there will be accountability for we need to determine accountability. I explained that in part in my previous posts.

I also explained how having a reference point which is for Christians God's moral standards we have a measuring stick to determine what is a right or wrong act. But you don't have that with subjective morality but only personal opinion. So all this protesting about what is the criteria for determining what wrong is done is an illusion and waste of time under subjective morality because there is no independent reference point.

It is moral. God told his people to herd animals for eating. In fact, cattle were a big part of God's creation of animals for eating. Jesus parables talk about killing a pig or calf for a celebratory feast such as when the prodigal son came home the father put on a big feast.

Well, then we may as well agree to disagree because that is the main and only support for objective morality. If I cannot present this there is no sense continuing. Anyway, you keep saying that this doesn't prove objective morals but you still haven't backed up that claim. You still haven't given a defeater for the logical argument.

I agree but that doesn't change the fact that if objective morals are true and within all of us that everyone's lens will be tainted by this fact. They may deny this, they may call it something else but they will still know that certain things are always wrong. The difference with subjective morality is that it will still be wrong despite their subjective morality.

So like I said they may claim there are no right and wrongs or morals are only "likes or dislikes" but they will react like morals are always wrong in certain situations and are more than just "likes or dislikes". They won't be able to help it, something in them will take over and cause them to be in conflict when they deny the truth.

That kind of behavior is not possible under subjective morality. That is why I keep pointing it out. If a person claims subjective morality then they are saying that there are many different moral views. None are really right or wrong so everyone can have their views. Live and let live more or less.

But condemning people and demanding they should do this or not do that, ought to do this and ought to do that is not a subjective position. They are saying people can't have their own subjective view and must be like them. Stop believing and liking what they thing/view is moral and follow my morals. That is not subjective. I gave you examples. Gee.

I never said every 5 minutes. I used the example that under subjective morals people shouldn't be concerned about anything being right or wrong as there are no objective right and wrongs. Everything is an opinion. The sign that says don't steal is an opinion. So people should just go and steal something and not worry about other people's opinions because they are not really right.

But people stop and hesitate, think it's wrong, contradicting their subjective moral position. They change their mind again and think ah so what I'm going to take it anyway as I want/need it. Then they feel guilty again for doing it. But they shouldn't be going through any of that as they haven't done anything wrong under the subjective moral system.

Under subjective morality, it seems to be.

No its the other way around. Because there is objective morality there have to be moral standards outside humans. There has to be some sort of transcendent entity who makes the moral laws. I have explained this earlier. Christians like myself happen to think it is God but it could be some other entity. That doesn't matter so much for proving objective morals as you can do that without a God. Your acting like you have just realized this. Didn't I tell you all this earlier?

Given that you have not produced a single argument here to which I have not already responded, is there any point in me wasting my time trying to explain it to you again when you seem so determined not to pay attention?