Sorry, I am just clarifying that you don't think there is an objective determination for this matter.
I have been extremely clear and open about my position. I can't for the life of me see why you would need any more clarification.
If you say there is no objective way to determine what is the right or wrong thing to do, what is a better way to behave than other ways to behave then it follows that you cannot know which way to behave in this matter.
You know, people can make a decision about things, even if those things are subjective...
I realize I have repeatedly asked you this but each time I am clarifying your position to be sure thats what you mean because its very important as to the implications of that position as pointed out above.
Well, it comes across as either you not being able to remember my position, or that you haven't read my posts, or that you just don't believe me. All of those are very rude.
I have made my position clear. You do not need to keep checking with me.
I guess its the same reasons I have to keep telling you that social conditioning doesnt mean morals are subjective.
You've yet to provide any convincing evidence to support that claim.
What do you mean you will have to wait until you are in that situation.
It means exactly what it sounds like.
Why, what does it sound like to you?
But as I said its not just about the majority blindly agreeing to something they are actually saying there is no other option but the one we agree on. There is no room for subjective opinions as all opinions are wrong except the one we agree on.
Except there are lots of moral opinions that don't have such agreement. Premarital sex, for example.
Thats more than just subjective morality as under subjective morality no sibngle view holds any weight because as you have claimed there are no objective morals so no view is better than another. Yet this majority claim that there is no room for subjectivity. They are saying if anyone diagrees with us they are mistaken.
Once again it seems I must point out that people acting as though their opinions are objectively true does not mean they are objectively true...
Thats a logiocal fallacy. As I have and also others on this thread have said it doesnt make any difference. OK so let me ask you how would a less extreme example make a difference.
Okay, and I'll even make it easy for you by keeping it as extreme as possible.
Is execution for crimes like murder ever morally justifiable? There are plenty of people who say it is, and plenty of people who say it isn't. And if you take the pro-execution side and list all their arguments, I suspect that most if not all of them would be labelled as subjective by the anti-execution side. And vice versa.