What's the difference? Remember; when the Nazis began murdering the Jews, they started with the Jewish citizens of Germany who were members of their tribe. Stalin, Mao, Amin, and countless others killed their own people as well. History is full of examples of tyrants subjectively deciding who within their tribe is deserving of murder.
Good examples. But Mao, Stalin, Amin etc.... their modes burn out pretty fast, because while you can get people ideologically amped up to go against deeper moral sensibilities for a time, it doesnt endure. Soviet communism is a great example of this in so many ways.
Not sure what you define as “burning out pretty fast” but slavery has been around for thousands of years and still continues today. But what’s your point? Are you suggesting murderous regime’s don’t last long because they are morally subjective?
I believe smell is subjective, but poison is definitely objective. I remember my dog once came home stinking like dead fish. We washed that horrible smell off her (to her chagrin) and as soon as we were done washing her, crazy dog went outside, found that dead fish and rolled around in it again. Though we found that smell repulsive, she obviously found the smell sweet.
Would you mind providing an example of having subjective feelings for objective reasons? (I believe smell is subjective, while poison is objective)
We get the feeling of disgust (subjective feeling) at the smell/taste of rotting flesh because it is actually bad for us to ingest (objective fact of reality).
If you are trying to make the argument that whatever smells bad is harmful to the body, IMO that is a poor argument to make. Chitlins smell bad but lots of people like them, Ive heard antifreeze taste good which is why so many dogs die from it's poison; just because something smells or taste bad doesn't mean it is bad for you; just because something smells or taste good, doesn't mean it is safe to consume
No it not an argument. Its what you asked for: an example.
If you are making the point that there are times when one might have a subjective bad feelings about something that it objectively bad, I will agree with that. It may not happen all the time, but it does happen.
My point was some of our subjective feelings based on objective facts.
What I agreed to has nothing to do with morality being objective. IOW the idea that some morals issues are based on objective facts.... that door remains nailed shut.
"Objectively bad" and "objectively good" are oxymorons. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms already. If you're talking about morality as being objective then you should be using "right" and "wrong" or more precisely "correct" and "incorrect". We can say that anything is "based on objective facts" if we phrase it correctly, which renders it meaningless.
I think you highly overrate how much conscious choice we have in determining our base values.
When I was speaking of objectively bad for you, I was referring to poison. The toxic effects of poison like cyanid or ethylene glycol will have on the human body is objective. However; this has nothing to do with morality.
Whether the choice is conscious or not has nothing to do with whether or not the choice is correct or incorrect. Unconscious =/= correct.
Right. Values are axiomatic. Moral rules are correct to the extent they satisfy values.
