No it doesn't actually. Subjective morality can only account for the subjective state of the subject and it stops there. It cannot be applied beyond the subject. It cannot explain how when it comes to moral reality between people which behaviour is actually the best morally beyond the person.
In other words, subjective morality doesn't allow for objective morality, so therefore it must be wrong.
Once again you are blinded by your inability to consider that morality is not objective.
As morality requires a right or wrong determination for humans to live together it actually doesn't reflect what is really happening. So subjective morality cannot obviously accommodate objectivity.
In other words, morality needs to be objective, so it can't be subjective.
Once again you are blinded by your inability to consider that morality is not objective.
Whereas objective morality allows for the subjective state of people up until the point where an objective determine needs to be made which objective morality meets all the above necessities.
You really need to let go of this "But morality just HAS to be objective" mindset.
The debate is whether morality is subjective or objective. You are not only claiming morality is not objective but thats its subjective. Its the same claim as claiming morals are objective. You use support like the disagreement arguement for morality to prove your case. You are not just claiming morality is subjective as your opinion because you argue for its truth.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
"Kylie thinks Star Trek is better than Star Wars."
That is my SUBJECTIVE opinion.
It is an OBJECTIVE fact that I hold an opinion about Star Trek.
But my opinion is still SUBJECTIVE, no matter how much I believe it.
Likewise, "Kylie has an opinion on whether morality is objective or subjective" is an objective fact. But having an opinion about morality does not serve in any way to show if it is objective or subjective.
I believe I've explained this before.
I hope I will not need to explain it again.
Like I said why does that matter. Its a logical fallacy. Complicated and hard to understand examples of what is moral doesn't negate that the extremes can be objectively wrong. Just like in science some things are extremely obvious facts and others are more complex and harder to work out.
No, and again, this is an issue I've explained to you before.
You are using extreme examples in an effort to get everyone to agree with you. After all, no one wants to be the guy who says that rape is permissible. But getting agreement like that is fallacious. It's just, "Oh, look, everyone thinks rape is always wrong, so the fact that everyone agrees must prove that it's objectively true that rape is always wrong, therefore morality is objective!"
You could say with just as much validity that if just about everyone thinks Battlefield Earth is a terrible movie, that must mean it is objectively true, and thus deciding what is a good or bad movie is objective, not subjective.
If morality really is objective, then such objectivity must apply to ALL moral situations, not just the extreme ones like rape and murder. Yet you are entirely incapable of demonstrating your point with these less extreme examples.
But that doesn't mean they cannot be worked or find the truth nor does it negate the truth about the obvious extreme facts/truth. In other words you are using the fact that there are complicated moral situations that is harder to find a truth to dismiss objective morality altogether. It doesn't follow.
You've yet to show that it CAN be worked out, and your attempt to prove it by claiming that it's obvious is weak.
Not sure what your trying to say. If it is racism and people kill others because of their race then its wrong regardless of primitive thinking. We thought African people were sub-human and enslaved them.
People thought they were justified morally back then. But in reality they were not, just ignorant of the facts about human nature. We are all the wiser today and can look back on those times and say they were wrong. But you can't do that unless there is some objective basis to measure what is right and wrong behaviour.
I'm saying that back when people lived in small nomadic groups, it could well have been advantageous to attack anyone who was not part of the group, since such strangers could have posed a threat to the flourishing of the group. Thus, by your own reasoning, it would have been the moral thing to do to attack and kill any intruders.
Yes there is an objective. The objective is that all humans are valuable because they have a natural right to life in the first place. What your trying to do is muddy the waters with ethical dilemmas. But ethical dliemmas only happen when measured against an objective.
That's ridiculous. They're dilemmas precisely because there is no objective to measure them against, and so there can never be an answer that can't be argued. If there was an objective way to determine the truth, they would no more be dilemmas than "What is one plus one" is a dilemma.
In other words why even worry about who is more valuable if there is no objective truth that humans are valuable in the first place. Just because there may be complications that we have to figure out as to the refinements of moral truths is different circumstances doesn't mean there is no objective moral that is driving us to assess what is the best thing to do against that moral truth.
This is just ridiculous. If there's no objective measure, we just shouldn't bother at all?
That's like saying that no one should ever make a movie or watch a movie ever again because there's no objective way to determine if a movie is good or not.
Why its fits perfectly. For example if morality was truely subjective then the only moral truth is the " subjects truth". Everyones moral truth is equal and no individual truth can be condemned as being wrong in any truthful way that applies outside each subject.
I've already explained why that's wrong. Many times.
So applied to how we really live the subjectivists would live as though other peoples subjective views about stealing being ok for example are of equal status as there is no truth about stealing.
Again, I've explained why that is wrong as well.
Either you aren't paying attention to my posts, or you are deliberately ignoring me.
But in reality when the subjectivists is arguing about the morality of stealing or lives out a real life situation where they were robbed for example they condemn the perpetrator and those who steal in society as being truthfully wrong outside their subjective opinion. So they are living a contradiction in reality.
Though you say that " acting like something doesn't mean its really true". But what else is there to go on but the reality of our lived lives. Subjectivists are not just acting like something is true they are contradicting their own moral position and in doing so are revealing how they really believe and act about morality.
And please don't use the " sun and earth" example again as its irrelevant and a false analogy as I explained.
Do you know what a PRATT is?
Point
Refuted
A Thousand
Times.
Please stop using them.
