Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

I have pointed out many times in this thread that your arguments are based on an apparent inability to comprehend a subjective morality. All of that stuff that boils down to, "But if morality is subjective, then how do we tell what is objectively right and wrong?" stuff. You have never presented any actual facts to support your position, merely that kind of flawed argument.

I am only responding to the objections you give. You can't make objections and then retract them when they get proven false and replace them with another objection that is also false.

I have provided facts. It is a fact that acts like rape and murder are wrong just like 2+2=4. There is no other answer. Thats unless you can explain how someone who thinks murder and rape is morally good. Then we only have one option and that is acts like murder and rape are objectively wrong.

The fact that under subjective morality we cannot determine whether acts like murder or rape are wrong shows how subjectivity is inadequate to address moral issues. In a society that has to live together with some order and peace we have to make acts like murder and rape objectively wrong.

You have argued the same way to object to objective morality and support subjective morality. I have shown that those arguements against objective morality are false. Either acts like murder and rape are right or wrong. I don't think there's any arguement that makes these acts subjectively ok.

So we are left with 2 options and the fact is we make these acts objectively wrong rather than OK for good factual reasons. They harm and destroy humans and society. Is that not a good enough reason.

Just because we don't have any physical test tube evdience that these acts are wrong doesn't mean they are not truthfuly wrong by the fact that they cannot be truthfully good to do. We have to make a decision either way. Leaving it to chance or arbitray determinations only leads to nilhilism.

 

[Kylie]

Go read post #2584 and refresh your memory.

However, the pair you suggested in post 2575 does not provide such useful information. You proposed the pair "Rape is always wrong/rape is not always wrong." The trouble is that it only needs one single occasion for rape to be not wrong for the pair to provide no useful information. There could only be a one-in-a-billion situation, but it tells us nothing about what that situation is. It doesn't even tell us how often it is not wrong.

Of course, using rape for this is an extreme example, one which I suspect biases our opinion since nearly everyone holds the opinion that rape is never justified. A better hypothetical would be theft. So shall we use that instead?

Case in point.

What point do you think you've proven here? That it's subjective? That's what I've been saying all along!

 

[Kylie]

I am only responding to the objections you give. You can't make objections and then retract them when they get proven false and replace them with another objection that is also false.

What objection did I retract?

I have provided facts. It is a fact that acts like rape and murder are wrong just like 2+2=4. There is no other answer.

That's not a fact, that's a claim.

I can just as easily say, "It's a fact that Star Trek is better than Star Wars, and anyone who says differently is just wrong."

Thats unless you can explain how someone who thinks murder and rape is morally good. Then we only have one option and that is acts like murder and rape are objectively wrong.

I do not need to explain HOW a person could think that rape or murder is acceptable in order to show that people who hold those views exist.

The fact that under subjective morality we cannot determine whether acts like murder or rape are wrong shows how subjectivity is inadequate to address moral issues. In a society that has to live together with some order and peace we have to make acts like murder and rape objectively wrong.

Then why is it that lionesses are perfectly happy to mate with and accept as pride leaders the lion who kills their cubs?

What you have described is ONE POSSIBLE WAY for a social group to work. The fact that it is the way the Human social groups does not make it objectively correct.

You have argued the same way to object to objective morality and support subjective morality. I have shown that those arguements against objective morality are false. Either acts like murder and rape are right or wrong. I don't think there's any arguement that makes these acts subjectively ok.

You THINK. At least you can admit that you are resorting from an argument from incredulity.

And ONCE AGAIN you argument is based on, "But if morality is subjective, there is no objective right or wrong, and I can't comprehend how there might not be an objective right or wrong, so subjective morality must be wrong.

So we are left with 2 options and the fact is we make these acts objectively wrong rather than OK for good factual reasons. They harm and destroy humans and society. Is that not a good enough reason.

I'm not denying that they cause harm. In fact, if you'd been paying attention to my arguments in this thread, I have argued many times that the reasons we have the moral views that we do is precisely because such moral views guide us towards behaviour that is beneficial to our society and it drives away those who would harm our society.

Are you going to continue to subtly shift your views until you're agreeing with what I've been saying all along?

Just because we don't have any physical test tube evdience that these acts are wrong doesn't mean they are not truthfuly wrong by the fact that they cannot be truthfully good to do. We have to make a decision either way. Leaving it to chance or arbitray determinations only leads to nilhilism.

So if we don't have any evidence, why should we accept your position rather than mine as the default?

 

[stevevw]

What objection did I retract?

You objected that the % of support for objective morality is not the same as the examples you gave. I showed that it is and so rather than address this you change the goal posts and bring up another objection that "I fail to understand subjective morality". It is you that keeps giving examples of subjective morality and I keep knocking them down but you never acknowledge but rather move onto another one.

That's not a fact, that's a claim.
I can just as easily say, "It's a fact that Star Trek is better than Star Wars, and anyone who says differently is just wrong."

No you can't declare your preference for a TV is objectively right because subjective opinions are never right or wrong objectively. But we declare rape is wrong because its different to preferences and rquires a right or wrong determination. Big difference.

There is a misalignment between subjective thinking and the type of thinking required for morality. Subjective thinking doesn't work but objective/rational thinking does.

I do not need to explain HOW a person could think that rape or murder is acceptable in order to show that people who hold those views exist.

But its not about whether anyone exists that thinks rape is morally OK but that their view is objectively right or wrong. We can say that their view that murder is morally good is objectively wrong whether people exist with those views or not.

Then why is it that lionesses are perfectly happy to mate with and accept as pride leaders the lion who kills their cubs?

Its irrelevant as animals don't have morals like humans.

What you have described is ONE POSSIBLE WAY for a social group to work. The fact that it is the way the Human social groups does not make it objectively correct.

No its the only way. Saying its one possible subjective way a social group sees right and wrong implies there's no way possible to determine right and wrong because other possible ways are also valid as they are all equal. So to break this deadlock moral acts are either right or wrong according to some objective basis. Thats how morality works.

If someone says in my subjective opinion rape and murder are ok to do then we distrust that person and ostracize them from society. If they act on it we remove them from society altogether.

If we allow other possible subjective ways to measure morality then we are left with no basis to declare rape and murder as wrong in any objective way and therefore we can never say that they are wrong. Subjective morality is self-defeating and unreal to how we actually live out morality.

You THINK. At least you can admit that you are resorting from an argument from incredulity.

Then you would have to admit that all your arguements are from incredulity which I doubt that you really think thats the case. The point is this is the only way we can argue about morality. You and I know that there are some truths that we cannot prove physically like science but are true nonetheless. So we have to use other ways of justifying truth otherwise we could not ever delare anything morally wrong and that is unreal.

And ONCE AGAIN you argument is based on, "But if morality is subjective, there is no objective right or wrong,

That's correct it comes down to being either "right or wrong" and subjective opinions can never be "right or wrong". But we need to be able to declare certain acts are being right or wrong. So what do we do.

and I can't comprehend how there might not be an objective right or wrong, so subjective morality must be wrong.

But we can comprehend how moral acts can be either "right or wrong" so that counts out subjective opinions. When it comes to morality unlike opinions for TV shows, icecream, ect there is never a "right or wrong" so because subjective morality can never capture how morality works it can never be applied to morality.

Its a wrong way to look at morality in the first place. I have been showing you this by knocking down you examples using TV shows since we started to debate.

I'm not denying that they cause harm. In fact, if you'd been paying attention to my arguments in this thread, I have argued many times that the reasons we have the moral views that we do is precisely because such moral views guide us towards behaviour that is beneficial to our society and it drives away those who would harm our society.

Then thats an objective basis for morality as you have disregarded all subjective views that counter this and narowed it down to an objective. If you debated with someone about acts like rape, murder and stealing are wrong and the other person said "in my opinion" or "I prefer or like" rape and murder being morally OK you can ask why they think this.

The other person says "I just prefer or feel they are OK" (because subjective feelings and preferences have no rational basis) you can then refer back to your objective rational basis and claim that acts like rape, murder and stealing are wrong because they are not "beneficial to our society and it drives away those who would harm our society".

Otherwise lets say we have no objective basis to measure the right or wrong of acts like rape, murder and stealing and we had 2 people disagreeing about whether rape, murder and stealing are right or wrong to do. We would have 2 people appealing to their subjective "feelings and preferences" which can never really prove anything is right or wrong in an objective way.

That would mean the 2 people can never agree or disagree in any real sense because there is nothing to agree or disagree about with "feelings and preferences" in an objective way. It would just be about expressing the persons views.

But what we find when discussing moral acts is something different to subjective thinking "feelings and preferences". It matters more that we determine moral behaviour as being either "right or wrong" objectively unlike "feelings and preferences".

So what do we do. We can't just leave moral acts at being subjectively determined because that doesn't address morality in the first place and yet we need something to determine moral right and wrong objectively.

So we appeal to an objective basis to break the dead lock because we need to. We know matters like this need an objective determination because there are important reasons as you say "guide us towards behaviour that is beneficial to our society and it drives away those who would harm our society". There is a lot riding on these dicisions unlike subjective "feelings and preferences".

Thats our lived reality and thinking on morality. The fact is everyone who can be rational knows this and there is a common set of these moral truths throughtout human kind and its not because we just happened to all agree subjectively. Its not a coincident that we all agree it is because we know these are actually moral truths for good reason.

Are you going to continue to subtly shift your views until you're agreeing with what I've been saying all along?

I've never denied that humans use good reasons for why something is morally right or wrong. The issue is whether those good reasons you and I both cite are objective. You say they are subjectively determined which gives no rationality beyond the subjects. I say there is a rational reason beyond the subjects and that is the reasons we both agree is the basis. So maybe your more of a moral realist than you think.

So if we don't have any evidence, why should we accept your position rather than mine as the default?

But we do and you and I just highlighted this. If you want to say its not an objective basis but your subjective opinion then you you have no basis to tell the other person they are wrong and we get back to not being able to determine or disgree in any real way that acts like rape, murder and stealing are really wrong.

This applies to a society that subjectively or relatively determines what is morally right or wrong because all this is is a group of people still subjectively determiing things. We would have to say that they coinicidently all happen to align on the same subjective opinion for no good reason.

But we do have good reasons for why something is wrong morally as its different to subjective opinions which have no rational reasons. We cite the objective reasons you and I and everyone know is correct because we all know its true because of those reasons.

So you, I and everyone can agree for good objective reasons that certain acts are objectively wrong. Otherwise we can never agree and morality becomes a useless enterprise.

 

[stevevw]

I have pointed out many times in this thread that your arguments are based on an apparent inability to comprehend a subjective morality. All of that stuff that boils down to, "But if morality is subjective, then how do we tell what is objectively right and wrong?" stuff. You have never presented any actual facts to support your position, merely that kind of flawed argument.

So how do we tell whether an act is right or wrong so that we can declare to others, society and the world that they are really wrong apart from using some objective basis.

 

[Kylie]

You objected that the % of support for objective morality is not the same as the examples you gave. I showed that it is...

Rubbish. The examples I gave were cases where 95%+ hold one view, and only the tiniest minority hold the opposing view. By your own sources, the split when it comes to morality is something like 40/60.

Go get yourself some better arguments if you want me to look at the rest of your post. I'm done wasting my time with your obvious falsehoods.

 

[Kylie]

So how do we tell whether an act is right or wrong so that we can declare to others, society and the world that they are really wrong apart from using some objective basis.

Once again you fail because you insist that it must be done using some OBJECTIVE basis. How many times do I have to point out that this inability to get past the need for an objective basis for morality is what is holding you back?

 

[Chriliman]

So how do we tell whether an act is right or wrong so that we can declare to others, society and the world that they are really wrong apart from using some objective basis.

I think we just admit morality is subjective and hope the worst in society don’t realize their preference to rape and pillage isn’t actually wrong. Or that the upright don’t realize their preference to be fair and respectful isn’t actually right.

 

[stevevw]

Rubbish. The examples I gave were cases where 95%+ hold one view, and only the tiniest minority hold the opposing view. By your own sources, the split when it comes to morality is something like 40/60.

Yes and I said that there was a time when those scientific examples use to only have 40/60 split like moral realism. Do you even read my posts. Do you honestly think that all scientific facts today have had a 95% their entire history. Many scientific facts today had minimal support but gradually built to 95% over time.

I showed that your examples of the spherical earth theory and heliocentric univserse only had minimal support once including around 40/60% at one stage. I already showed you this evdience that opposing theories had the majority of support yet you claim its rubbish ie

The geocentric model was the predominant description of the cosmos in many European ancient civilizations, such as those of Aristotle in Classical Greece and Ptolemy in Roman Egypt.
Geocentric model - Wikipedia
Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period (323 BC), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period (31 BC),
Flat Earth - Wikipedia

That means it not only had a 40/60 split at one stage but there was a majority % against a heliocentric univserse and spherical earth and that other theories like the falt earth and geocentric model had majority support.

Go get yourself some better arguments if you want me to look at the rest of your post. I'm done wasting my time with your obvious falsehoods.

I don't need to as the arguement was already good enough according to the evidence I posted.

 

[stevevw]

I think we just admit morality is subjective and hope the worst in society don’t realize their preference to rape and pillage isn’t actually wrong. Or that the upright don’t realize their preference to be fair and respectful isn’t actually right.

lol well we live in hope then.

 

[stevevw]

Once again you fail because you insist that it must be done using some OBJECTIVE basis. How many times do I have to point out that this inability to get past the need for an objective basis for morality is what is holding you back?

I wasn't insisting on anything but asking you the question which you did'nt answer.

If there is no need for an objective basis to determine what is morally right or wrong then how do we tell what is morally right or wrong beyond the subject.

As I said group agreement won't explain this as subjective group agreement is still a subjective/relative determination and could be wrong. Humans have agreed on immoral acts thinking they are right when they were wrong.

So how can we possibly determine moral acts like rape and murder being wrong without some independent measure.

You stated that you use the fact that acts like murder and rape harm society and we can then remove those who commit these acts from society. That is an objective basis for morality.

So you even acknowledge that some objective reason has to be used rather than the arbitrary thinking of subjectivism which measures morality by personal opinion, preferences and feelings and can never determine anything truthfuly.

 

[Kylie]

Yes and I said that there was a time when those scientific examples use to only have 40/60 split like moral realism. Do you even read my posts. Do you honestly think that all scientific facts today have had a 95% their entire history. Many scientific facts today had minimal support but gradually built to 95% over time.

I showed that your examples of the spherical earth theory and heliocentric univserse only had minimal support once including around 40/60% at one stage. I already showed you this evdience that opposing theories had the majority of support yet you claim its rubbish ie

The geocentric model was the predominant description of the cosmos in many European ancient civilizations, such as those of Aristotle in Classical Greece and Ptolemy in Roman Egypt.
Geocentric model - Wikipedia
Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period (323 BC), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period (31 BC),
Flat Earth - Wikipedia

That means it not only had a 40/60 split at one stage but there was a majority % against a heliocentric univserse and spherical earth and that other theories like the falt earth and geocentric model had majority support.

I don't need to as the arguement was already good enough according to the evidence I posted.

You're argument is nothing more than, "It happened for those other things that had evidence from the real world that could be expressed in rigorous and formal language, so it's going to happen again with this thing that can't be described in rigorous and formal language."

You might as well say, "They laughed at Galileo and he was proved right, so the fact they are laughing at me means I will be proved right as well!"

 

[Kylie]

I wasn't insisting on anything but asking you the question which you did'nt answer.

If there is no need for an objective basis to determine what is morally right or wrong then how do we tell what is morally right or wrong beyond the subject.

Your inability to grasp this most basic of premises leaves me absolutely astounded.

WE DON'T.

As I said group agreement won't explain this as subjective group agreement is still a subjective/relative determination and could be wrong. Humans have agreed on immoral acts thinking they are right when they were wrong.

Give me an example of a widespread moral view that was considered morally good by the people who had it but is considered morally wrong by most people today.

If you're going to say something like the Holocaust, that doesn't cut it. As I've repeatedly argued, the group agreement idea of morality is based on what is perceived to be good for the society. The Nazis viewed Jewish people as harmful to their society, thus they had ample justification from their point of view for wiping them out.

And if you think for a second of suggesting in even the slightest way that this is me saying that the Holocaust was in anyway justified, I will report your post.

So how can we possibly determine moral acts like rape and murder being wrong without some independent measure.

We don't need an independent measure to decide SUBJECTIVELY that they are wrong in just the same way I didn't need an independent measure to decide that Star Trek is a great franchise.

You stated that you use the fact that acts like murder and rape harm society and we can then remove those who commit these acts from society. That is an objective basis for morality.

That in itself is not sufficient to establish morality. If it were, then smoking, gambling and drinking would be seen as completely immoral and would be banned.

So you even acknowledge that some objective reason has to be used rather than the arbitrary thinking of subjectivism which measures morality by personal opinion, preferences and feelings and can never determine anything truthfuly.

You show me where in what you quoted I said anything that could be interpreted to mean that.

You took one paragraph and went on a rant.

 

[stevevw]

You're argument is nothing more than, "It happened for those other things that had evidence from the real world that could be expressed in rigorous and formal language, so it's going to happen again with this thing that can't be described in rigorous and formal language."

You might as well say, "They laughed at Galileo and he was proved right, so the fact they are laughing at me means I will be proved right as well!"

No your arguement was that scientific facts today have 95% support and this shows that moral realism cannot ever be true because it only has 60/40% support.

Your arguement is a logical fallacy because I showed that scientific facts use to only have 40/60 support as well. So that defeated that arguement.

But once again you change the goal posts and add an additional objection with scientific language. The type of language doesn't mean that we may develop a better understanding and language of moral realism and be able to support it in the future.

We have different languages to describe different sorts of facts and the language of science was less formal and rigorious throughout history because they didn't understand things the way we do today to be able to use better formal and rigorous language as we do today.

We didn't have the same level of being formal and rigorious for quantum physics before and when the sub atomic world was theorised as we do today. Science had less formal and rigorous language in the past which included unsupported informal language compared to today.

Like I said just about every arguement you apply to science can be applied to moral realism.

 

[Kylie]

No your arguement was that scientific facts today have 95% support and this shows that moral realism cannot ever be true because it only has 60/40% support.

Show me where I said, "Moral objectivity can not ever be true because it only has 60/40 support."

 

[stevevw]

Your inability to grasp this most basic of premises leaves me absolutely astounded.

WE DON'T.

wow thats a big don't. I do grasp what you’re saying and have done all along. But you keep contradicting your own arguments so I keep asking the question to clarify what you are actually saying.

On the one hand you say subjective morality DON'T determine moral right and wrong but on the other cite objective measures to determine right and wrong when describing how you can argue with someone else about whether something like muder or rape is wrong. In case you claim that you have not used an objective measure please refer to below.

Give me an example of a widespread moral view that was considered morally good by the people who had it but is considered morally wrong by most people today.

That’s easy. Slavery now seen as a violation of human rights, shock treatment now seen as abuse, flirting with oposite sex at work now seen as sexual harassment, stolen generation which was thought to be best morally now seen as an abuse, belting kids now seen as abuse, child labour, discrimination against minorities, colonialism, imperialism etc. All thought to be morally justified and now seen as abuses.

If you're going to say something like the Holocaust, that doesn't cut it. As I've repeatedly argued, the group agreement idea of morality is based on what is perceived to be good for the society. The Nazis viewed Jewish people as harmful to their society, thus they had ample justification from their point of view for wiping them out.

And if you think for a second of suggesting in even the slightest way that this is me saying that the Holocaust was in anyway justified, I will report your post.

Then why did the Nazi's get prosecuted at Nuremburg. Why were they condemned for crimes against Humanity? I am not saying you think what they did was OK but how can a subjective/relative moral system that is supposed to stop immoral acts then allow for such a horrific act to be justified. That just shows how it doesn’t really work for morality.

The assumption subjective morality makes is that the agreed/conditioned morality a culture has is morally good. But conditioning has nothing to do with whether acts is right or wrong. As we can see a culture can condition people to think barbaric acts are good.

But it also conflicts with individual subjective views because individuals are expected to conform to the cultures views. So anyone who objects and has a different view is seen as out of step with that society. Yet subjective morality is supposed to allow for individual subjective views. It just doesn’t work.

Now that you have acknowledge that subjective morality CAN’T determine moral right and wrong in any real way then its really a meaningless moral system.

We don't need an independent measure to decide SUBJECTIVELY that they are wrong in just the same way I didn't need an independent measure to decide that Star Trek is a great franchise.

But you just admitted that subjective morality CAN’T determine right and wrong. You’re actually not answering the question and that’s why I keep asking. All you’re doing is deflecting to some logical fallacy which doesn’t apply to morality.

As I have said countless times subjective preferences for TV shows is different to moral issues. So you need to stop using this false analogy logical fallacy. I just explained how it cannot be a method for morality above. As soon as you apply your subjective morals to others you give up subjective morality and become a moral realist because you are now claiming that your moral truth applies to others outside yourself.

That in itself is not sufficient to establish morality. If it were, then smoking, gambling and drinking would be seen as completely immoral and would be banned.

Then why even use “harm” as to show to others that certain acts are wrong if it’s insufficient to establish moral right and wrong. You are once again throwing up fallacies.

Rather than address this you throw up the logical fallacy that if we allow some contentious moral issues then there cannot be any moral truths. It doesn’t follow. As you agree cultures can allow immoral acts to be OK when they may be wrong.

Besides gambling, smoking and drinking are different to most other moral issues because they are not wrong in themselves. But when they affect others they are banned. We put bans on smoking in enclosed spaces; underage smoking, we put bans on problem and underage gamblers and we have bans against drinking like shut out laws, drink driving laws and underage drinking laws.

You show me where in what you quoted I said anything that could be interpreted to mean that.

You use “harm” and “empathy “ many times as the objective basis for why an act is morally wrong.

Kylie said
#785
Of course, I must point out that slavery causes demonstrable harm, and I base my subjective conclusion that slavery is morally wrong on that objective harm.

Except once you argue with someone else or a society uses about whether slavery is right or wrong
#1992
Because things like murder, rape, theft, etc., harm the social community.
#2663 I have argued many times that the reasons we have the moral views that we do is precisely because such moral views guide us towards behaviour that is beneficial to our society and it drives away those who would harm our society.

Using “harm” and what “benefits” society as the guide/measure for determining what is right and wrong makes it an objective measure. You and everyone in that society are being “guided” towards one option of how to behave and not any subjective option in how to behave. That one option is based on no committing underserved “harm”.

#788 as I've argued before, my empathy lets me imagine how a slave must feel, so I can understand the harm they are going through.

You only have empathy for a specific reason which is “harming others” which makes "harm" an objective basis and you even qualified this by saying its a reasonable conclusion.

I reach the reasonable conclusion

A reasonable conclusion can only be determined by measuring what is reasonable and unreasonable against some objective basis. You even clarified that objective basis as the “Golden Rule”

Thus, I do for them what I would hope someone would do for me

The “Golden rule” is an objective basis for measuring what is morally right and wrong. It’s a “RULE” to follow thus guiding everyone and dismissing alternative subjective views.

You took one paragraph and went on a rant.

How is that a rant? I thought considering we are having so much trouble not understanding each other that I would give an actual example of how a moral conversation would go for better clarity.

 

[stevevw]

Show me where I said, "Moral objectivity can not ever be true because it only has 60/40 support."

I base this on the fact that I said that we can possibly find that in the future we may understand morality better like in science and find moral facts. You said rubbish. You gave arguements against this ever happening because its mistaken thinking and therefore if its mistaken thinking now its always going to be mistaken thinking. Thats unless you admit that its not mistaken thinking which I doubt.

Kylie said
You're argument is nothing more than, "It happened for those other things that had evidence from the real world that could be expressed in rigorous and formal language, so it's going to happen again with this thing that can't be described in rigorous and formal language."

 

[Kylie]

wow thats a big don't. I do grasp what you’re saying and have done all along.

You don't act like it.

 

[Kylie]

I base this on the fact that I said that we can possibly find that in the future we may understand morality better like in science and find moral facts. You said rubbish. You gave arguements against this ever happening because its mistaken thinking and therefore if its mistaken thinking now its always going to be mistaken thinking. Thats unless you admit that its not mistaken thinking which I doubt.

Kylie said
You're argument is nothing more than, "It happened for those other things that had evidence from the real world that could be expressed in rigorous and formal language, so it's going to happen again with this thing that can't be described in rigorous and formal language."

Ah, so you are claiming that I said, "Moral objectivity can not ever be true because it only has 60/40 support," because, in you words, "we can possibly find that in the future we may understand morality better like in science and find moral facts."

We can POSSIBLY find that we MAY find moral facts.

So you are deliberately misrepresenting me because of supposition and guesswork on your part.

Is it any wonder that I find it tiresome to try to discuss things with you?

 

[stevevw]

You don't act like it.

Thats because I am acting how someone who disagrees that subjective morality is true. I understand subjective morality, its not rocket science. Under subjective morality a persons preferences and emotions are what determines moral right and wrong.

In fact under subjective morality there are no moral rights and wrongs because its not about morals at all. The idea is humans mistakenly or live an illusion thinking morality is something seperate from our preferences and feelings. So we label what we prefer and feel as being morally good and bad when its not.

I am only explaining how preferences and emotions don't equate to how morality really works in real life so using this analogy is a false anology even before we try to work out if objective morality is true or not.

You even acknowledged this when you offered objective reasons why you think certain acts are morally wrong when arguing with others about what is morally right and wrong. There needs to be some determination beyond subjects ( and you can't use preferences for TV shows as it doesn't work).

The fact that you, I and everyone in society refers back to some objective which 9 times out of 10 is unjustifiably harming and violating humans is no coincidence of consensus. Its because its a reasonable and rational basis for measuring moral behaviour.

Once again remembering that there is no reasonableness and rationality to subjective feelings and preferences just as preferences or feelings about food of TV shows are not based on reasonableness or rationality because they are the psychological states of the subject.

You could ask why does someone prefer chocolate ice-cream. Because it tastes good. There is no rationality. Therefore why does someone like racism. Because it feels good, it makes me feel superior. There is no rationality. When you introduce rationality and reasonableness there needs to be some outside objective measure.