Well certainly the vote for SSM was either a "Yes or No". It was either right or wrong to allow SSM. Only one determination was made "yes" for SSM. So all those who opposed SSM had their personal subjective view denied and not allowed. Isn't that pretty objective.
No, it's not. The people who voted to support SSM did so because of views that were equally subjective.
The only objective thing was that the number of people who supported SSM was objectively greater than the number of people who opposed it.
If there was a subjective moral system then discounting some moral views as wrong is a contradiction to the system because all moral views are equal and should not be wrong. Just like all tastes for food are equal and none are wrong and should not be denied from society. So denying all other subjective views and fixing on one right determination and making it law is objective.
Once again your argument is ridiculous.
I am not obligated to believe that a moral viewpoint that I disagree with is RIGHT just because the person who holds does so subjectively. It's the same way that I am not obligated to think that a movie I think is bad is actually good just because someone else thinks it's a good movie.
I haven't confued anything. I have consistently said that we can measure a moral right or wrong against certain values like Human Rights for example which have been reasoned as inalienable rights that cannot be devalued by relative/subjective views.
The reasons underpinning laws like Human Rights has been reasoned against a justified belief truth about human "Life" having intrinsic value (natural born rights).
Yes, you've consistently said it, but you haven't actually SHOWN it at all.
All you've done is make the same claims again and again without providing any actual support for them.
Unfortunately as mentioned by another poster that this topic is off limits. I can only say like with other issues like rape or killing we should be able to look at all the information from science and stats and see how each situation can affect individuals and society.
Okay then. Let's use a different example. Is polyamory objectively right or wrong? If you don't like that example, I'm sure we can come up with something else. Because you have,
once again, resorted to an extreme example to make your case.
To say we can't investigate the situation to find the facts is epistemically unjstified. The fact that we can determine better/best ways to behave in these situations shows we can move towards a more truthful determination (objective).
You are assuming that there is an objective truth there to find.
So it shows that acts done under the guise of "empathy" are unpredictable and biased and not a good way to measure morality. Though people thought they were doing the right thing at the time like with many past wrongs we can look back and see that they were objectively wrong today.
We could not do that if morality was subjective/relative as there is nothing morally wrong and people are just expressing their different moral views like expressing their different food tastes. The fact that we look back and evaluate those acts as being wrong shows there is some moral objective basis for measuring that those acts as wrong.
No, it shows just the opposite.
It shows that subjective views can change. The people who took indigenous children believed they were morally right just as strongly as we believe today that a person doing that is morally wrong.
I don't understand. What is your point.
The corporations don't care at all about people unless they are legally required to. So don't give me this nonsense about how HR departments are there to look after the workers. If they were, we wouldn't need unions.
Theres one object measure. Not causing harm to humans and a functioning society is an objective measure beyond individual personal subjetcive views because it homes in on one criterion for what is right and wrong morally ie Don't do anything that harms humans and disrupts the functioning of society.
And how do you objectively define "harm"?
Show your working.
And now you have identified a possible objective reason why all "LIfe" is geared towards survival as opposed to throwing themselves off a cliff. As I mentioned before all domains converge on "LIfe" being intrinsically valuable whether thats through evolution, psychology, religion, socialisation, culture ect. All behaviour treats "Life" as being something worth saving.
And evolution explains that perfectly well. Any life forms that were disposed to throw themselves off cliffs would die out and be less likely to reproduce. The ones more likely to reproduce were the ones who acted in ways that kept them around long enough to reproduce.
The reason I keep repreating the same things is because I think your wrong. You are not negating lifes value but actually promoting my arguement and I keep pointing this out.
Your claims are not going to become more persuasive if you repeat them again and again.
You need to actually show your working. I'm not going to be convinced by unsupported claims.
And we can find what is better/best when we debate by appealing to facts beyond our subjective views. Debates always come down to facts to prove you are right and the other person is wrong. The fact that we argue to the point of appealing to facts shows we are appealing to something objective.
Ridiculous. There are plenty of debates about things that are subjective, such as whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars.
Moral realism points out that some of those facts/reasons are objective because when we argue about morality we argue in terms of their being a right or wrong determination. The fact that we seek that objective determination shows we know morality needs a right or wrong answer.
Again, you are assuming that there is an objective morality there to find.
So do you think we could find a better way to behave by comparing that behaviour to other ways of behaviour.
Wow, you completely missed the point, didn't you?
In a particular situation, I will decide that a particular course of action is the morally best course of action. Someone else may decide that a different course of action is morally best. That doesn't mean there's an objective morally best course of action, it just means that different people have different subjective views about what is best, based on their own subjective opinions.
And you have just given an objective reason why stealing is wrong ie "harm done to others, its causes a hassle". Remember under a subjectiv/relative moral system there are no objective basis. So appealing to how stealing affects the individual and society is an objective measure.
And how do you define harm?
Tell me, if I steal $20 from someone, what OBJECTIVE harm have I done to them?
Because, if it's a poor person, that $20 might be the difference between them eating today or not. Or them getting their medicine or not. Or paying their rent or not. Or keeping their power connected or not.
But if it's a wealthy person, then it will make little difference to them at all.
See how the harm done is SUBJECTIVE?
If morality was subjective your reasoning would mean nothing in regards to how stealing affect others and society just like your reasoning for preferring chocolate cake. There is no reasons beyond you that you can put out in the world as a reason why everyone should not steal or like chocolate cake.
Except for the fact that stealing affects someone else. I've spoken many times about forcing one person's morality onto another person causes harm. You seem to forget that quite often.
But the fact that you end up appealing to some objective basis outside your peronsal view shows how when it comes to morlaity we cannot help but appeal to some objective. You cannot argue with someone about morality without there being some objective determination of being either right or wrong.
Where in that example did I appeal to some objective basis outside my personal views?
So therefore "Empathy" is your objective basis as to why everyone should not steal.
Are you actually saying that you think empathy is OBEJCTIVE?
Probably similar to what you just explained. Perhaps with some more detail about the facts for how stealing harms/damages individuals (even the perpetrator) and society. When you say "how would you like your wallet stolen" as an example of explaining to the perpetrator that its morally wrong to steal you are taking your personal subjective view and making it the objective that everyone should follow.
No, no, come on now.
I gave a specific example, you can do the same.
And you can't claim that you'd use an objective basis and then resort to the same subjective basis I used.
Like I said before people can claim stealing is subjective and and that in certain situations like being poor is a justification for stealing being ok and therefore subjective. But when they have their wallet stolen by some poor person they objective and want justice. So this exposes how we really view morality in reality.
Okay, so some person who is fairly wealthy has $20 stolen from him by someone who is struggling to feed their family. The victim insists that the thief is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and the thief who was trying to feed their family is sent to prison.
Tell me, what's your opinion of someone who would do that? Because cases like that have happened, and there's been outrage.
No its clear what I said. How can I trust your feelings about what is right and wrong when your feelings could be skewed by personal experience. Surely we can investigate some facts about the matter beyond feelings so that we can have a better basis for making such important determinations. Like you used above such as empathy or human wellbeing and flourishing.
Of course my feelings are going to be skewed by personal experience! That's why it's subjective! That's the whole point of what I'm saying! EVERYONE'S feelings are going to be skewed by their personal experience, and since their ideas of morality are based on their feelings, their ideas of morality are going to be SUBJECTIVE.