But what does this have to do with circumstances? Your original point was that dependency on circumstances is inversely related to justification for concluding that it is objective. (
link)
Because you can use different circumstances to explain away anything that indicates the theory failed.
I say 1+1=3. You say no it doesn't, and I say, "Oh, that's because we're on Earth. If we were on another planet, I'd be correct." You'd say that the mathematics of spacecraft sent out to to other planets is based on 1+1=2, and I'd say, "Ah, but they didn't actually land on other planets." You'd say that some of them did, and I'd say, "But those were spherical planets like Earth." And it would go on like that. No matter what criticism you presented, I could always find some circumstance which would let me explain away any failure.
Again, what does this have to do with circumstances?
You're the one who claimed it depends on the circumstances, back when you said, " As for your example of smacking a child it will depend on the circumstances. We cannot just say its right or wrong across the board with a strict rule. That is not how objective morals work. You would have to be more specific." That was in post
215.
When we deal with objective facts, there is a strict rule. In decimal counting, 1+1 will equal 2, never 3. And when it comes to figuring out trajectories, we can do the same. We can use a formula into which we can insert the different variables - the strength of local gravity, launch angle, launch speed, air speed (which could blow the projectile off course), air density (which will affect how wind will blow the projectile off course as well as atmospheric drag), projectile shape (which will also affect drag), planetary rotation and probably a lot of other variables I've not considered, and it will give us an accurate result.
But the point is that each of these things is a clearly describable thing and is not open to interpretation.
When it comes to a disobedient child, (let's say they stole a chocolate bar from the shop), there are still variables to consider. Is there a pattern of disobedient behaviour, or is this a one-off thing, for example. But such variables can not in this case be accounted for in a way that all people will agree on. Some people will say that smacking is appropriate, but others will say no, smacking is not appropriate no matter what. Others might say smacking is appropriate in some cases, but only for serious transgressions and this doesn't count. Some people will say that grounding the child for two weeks is a more suitable punishment, but others will say that two weeks is too long, and it should only be for one week. These are all matters of OPINION, unlike the variables that need to be considered in the trajectory example. And since they are matters of opinion, they are subjective, not objective. Thus, we can not say that there is objective morality.
Of course you are free to present new arguments, but I was responding to your claim about circumstances, which Orel criticized. Do you agree that your argument about circumstances was invalid?
No, it was not invalid. People who claim that objective morality often use the "It depends on the exact circumstances) argument in an effort to show that each and every situation is different and thus can't be described with a "strict rule" as you said, despite the fact that many other objective things can be described with such a rule.
And even without that argument, the proof of morality being subjective is that you can get two people looking at the same exact situation so the circumstances are identical, and they will STILL come to different conclusions! This would not happen if morality was indeed objective. Subjective morality is the best explanation for why this is so.