But you have used TV shows as an anology for morality many times.
Yes I did. And YOU are the one resorting to the "Yeah, but it's different" excuse, so don't blame this on me.
What about laws against stealing, rape, murder, descrimination, sexual harassment, equality, ect. Heck theres even laws against speaking certain words that are deemed morally wrong. You can get sacked for just expressing a personal view. I mean you don't see laws stopping people from expressing their personal views about TV shows or preference for brussel sprouts lol.
Okay, show me a law that says, "This country MUST have a law against murder."
Why he's only expressing his personal subjective view, its not wrong. I may not feel comfortable with that but his view is just one of many views out there that has equal rights to be expressed as there is no moral truths under a subjective/relative system.
You know, I honestly don't believe you.
If your next door neighbour said to you, "I don't think it's wrong for a person to break into their neighbour's house and brutally murder them while they slept," I don't think you are going to be sleeping very well. You'll react to every single noise you hear.
On what basis can you say they are wrong if you have no basis to determine what is wrong and everything is about feelings or opinions. Feelings and opinions cannot be wrong. They are just a different feeling or opinion to you.
Are you just ignoring what I say now? I've answered this question countless times.
If we look at any world body or national laws we find that as a society, nation and world we have a small set of specific moral truths that we have made Rights and laws. This means that only one set of moral view is allowed and any deviation from this is not acceptable. These Rights and Laws have been made inalienable so they cannot be subject to subjective/relative views.
Irrelevant. This is yet another thing I have explained countless times. The fact that most people share a similar set of moral viewpoints does not mean those moral views are objective.
I am not saying that this is evidence alone for objective morals. But its more consistent with objective morality. If you want to use conditioning as evidence for relative morality then the evdience I am claiming is no different.
What would be consistent with objective morality would be if every country had the same opinion about whether a state-mandated religion was right or wrong, or if every country had the same conclusion about the age at which young people are able to legally have sex.
This does NOT happen, yet if morality was indeed objective, we would expect it to.
I have already acknowledged this. What I wanted to know is how that relates to the objective event of rape happening.
How many times do I need to tell you this?
I AM NOT SAYING RAPE DOESN'T HAPPEN. I AM NOT SAYING RAPE DOESN'T CAUSE HARM.
I have already told you about misrepresenting my position regarding this, and now you are doing it again.
I am saying that the way it affects the victim is subjective, not objective. You can't say, "Well, the rapist used a condom, so the rape was 23% less traumatic than if he had not used a condom."
Then if its subjective then why doesn't world bodies like the UN not allow an subjective/relative views that devalue life. If it was determined by subjective/relative views then Human Rights are forcing their personal subjective views onto the world. Its like they have declared that everyone should like Star Wars and brussel sprouts and all other preferences are ruled out.
That doesn't sound like a subjective/relative system but rather either the UN and most nations are being dictators or that they believe that Human Rights and other laws protecting and respecting "Life" are universial law and justified to be true.
Because you'r ridiculous notion that accepting that morality is subjective means we should accept and welcome moral viewpoints that we disagree with is
just plain wrong.
I have the subjective viewpoint that manure does not taste good.
But if someone brings a plate of it to my barbecue, I'm still going to toss it out.
Well perhaps thats because your expectation of what evidence should be is all wrong. Your looking for the knock down evdience of science like in a test tube. Well that ain't gonna happen when it comes to morality. The evdience is in how we live morality out in real life. There is no other way.
So its good you agree that not mugging people is a better way to behave than mugging them. We have already worked out one subjective view of behaviour that we can disregard as wrong. So if someone says I think mugging is the best way for humans to behave we can say they are objectively wrong.
We could probably come up with a bit of a list for how we can behave in better ways morally using this method.
And yet you apparently have the arrogant opinion that it must be me who is wrong, because it couldn't possibly be you.