Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

And if I disagree with him even on the extreme issues? Suppose I considered rape and murder to be as much aof a non moral issue as the choice between vanilla vs chocolate Ice cream? What objective evidence will he use to prove me wrong?

That you don't act like rape is judge the same as a choice between vanilla vs chocolate Ice cream? You actually want to stop people raping and you cant do that with food "Likes and Dislikes".

So therefore morality is different to "Likes and Dislikes" for food or at least you act like it is and that points to you knowing that rape is really wrong outside your "Likes and Dislikes".

 

[essentialsaltes]

But arnt you forcing your morals onto the rapist.

Yes, of course our actions follow from our beliefs.

This is also what the law does; enacts some codified collective morality of the polity, regardless of the opinions of the criminals.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, of course our actions follow from our beliefs.

Actually, I'd answer no. While I'm constraining the rapist's actions, I haven't made him adopt my morality.

It's like the question of free will: If I force my child to clean its room, I've forced it to act against its will but I haven't changed its will.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, of course our actions follow from our beliefs.

This is also what the law does; enacts some codified collective morality of the polity, regardless of the opinions of the criminals.

Yeah its not the best comparison as the law is a bit different to morality. But how it is treated as an objective standard that people must follow is like objective morality. That is why I think the objection that religion tries to force people to follow their morals is outdated because religions are now pushed to the fringes of secular society. So it is the State who is now the oppressor.

So I am interested to know if you think the same about non-lawful morals. Lets use "Greed". Say someone is always taking more than they need and depriving others. The "toilet roll syndrome" is a good example. During Covid 19 restrictions people rushed to buy out all the toilet paper for themselves. This turned into other items where some people were buying 6 or more of the same items and not sharing what was available.

So as a society we would frown down on this behaviour. So do you think that we can determine that "Greed" in this example is an objective moral wrong. It's morally wrong outside our subjective feelings, opinions or preferences.

 

[VirOptimus]

I find that a fairly strong personal opinion and yet it still doesnt mean that you are speaking any truth. The ironic thing is you would have to engage for us to know what you mean but you seem to never expand on anything. It would be nice to debate the subjective with you. Tell me what you see in my posts, enlighten me please I am not afraid to know.

Nah, you are just here to preach.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yeah its not the best comparison as the law is a bit different to morality. But how it is treated as an objective standard that people must follow is like objective morality.

Haha, 'your analogy is terrible, except for the part about how the law is objective because it's in black and white.'

Of course, laws are human-written and not objective in the ultimate sense, but if we want to check out whether marijuana is legal or not in a given jurisdiction, we can check the relevant code of laws to see whether it is or not. As a matter of fact.

The question is where (or how) we look to check if a moral rule is true or not. As a matter of fact. I don't see how.

So do you think that we can determine that "Greed" in this example is an objective moral wrong.

I don't see how. (without making some sort of subjective assumption, such as utilitarianism.)

 

[Moral Orel]

But arnt you forcing your morals onto the rapist.

No, I'm forcing him to stop doing something. He can feel however he wants to about that.

No what your doing is your stopping someone else who may like brussell sprouts from eating them. Lets exchange rape for brussel sprounts.

So you prefer people not to rape (you don't prefer brussel sprouts). When you see someone committing the act of eating brussell sprouts you will stop them. I didnt like that a a person was eating brussell sprouts, so I stop them from entering their mouth.

Look at these two sentences:

I prefer to not eat Brussel sprouts.
I prefer that no one eats Brussel sprouts.

Those two sentences are different.

So you can't say to to someone that stealing the money is morally wrong but you can stop a rapist who is doing something morally wrong.

I don't say that anything is morally wrong. I will stop a rapist because he's doing something I hate, not because he made an "incorrect" choice.

Well them how can you stop someone from raping if they are not doing anything morally wrong in any objective way. Arent you imposing your subjective morals onto them and forcing them to live by your morals when you do that.

How? By pulling him off the girl. Am I forcing him to live by my preference that folks don't rape? You bet! SO WHAT?

Because reality shows that people do act and react like there is a morally right way and morally wrong way to behave for themselves and others. It matters to them enough to want to stop people raping. It matters enough that they condemn certain immoral acts like they are wrong outside themselves and are a truth that applies to the world (everyone).

No, I act in line with what I like and dislike. Feeling very strongly against something isn't the same as believing a fact. Your argument is a fallacy.

So just to clarify your saying things like rape, stealing, killing, child abuse, domestic violence is not really morally wrong in any real sense of the word.

Nothing is "morally wrong". Nothing is "morally right". Our choices on how to act aren't correct/incorrect; I find that to be a bizarre way to judge people's actions.

 

[Ken-1122]

You have misunderstood this. We cannot involve human subjective thinking if morals are objective but that doesnt mean humans cannot use rationality and logic to work out the facts. It doesnt mean totally excluding humans. Just the thinking that expresses the humans views and opinions.

You said we have to determine the rightness or wrongness. To determine involves human views and opinions.

But humans can work out if there are facts/truths in the world. They can work out that 2 + 2 = 4 and not five. They can work a truth like rape is wrong not because you or I think its wrong but because it is wrong in itself.

With a half dozen stones, I can provide undeniable objective proof that 2+2=4. Can you provide undeniable objective proof that rape is wrong? I don't think so.

No I said objective morality is measured outside humans. Humans can still do the measuring but it cannot be their personal views which are more about the person that the fact of the matter.

So if human intuition has nothing to do with morality because morality is based outside of humans, what is morality based on?

Then how can you say to he is morally wrong for sleeping with your wife if there is no independent standard to measure if hes wrong or not.

You don't need an independent standard of measure in order to say someone is wrong for sleeping with your wife, subjectivity does not require it.

Just like humans recognise objective morals.

No, humans agree on the shape of the earth, they don't agree on morals. You cannot compare the two.

Human rational thinking determines moral objectives.

Human rational thinking is based strictly on human thought. Before you said objective morality is outside of human thought; which is it?

Math was not agreed upon. It is a measurement of what is.

No, math IS agreed upon. If someone claimed 2+2=5, everybody that knows arithmetic will agree that person was wrong, and with a half dozen stones; I can prove them wrong.

Math is dicovered not created by humans. 2 + 2 = 4 will still be true even if there were no humans.

No, without humans there would be no such a thing as 2+2=4. If some intelligent being from another galaxy had 6 fingers on each hand, and they constructed a numeric and math system based on the number 12, that would not be something discovered, it would be invented just like our base 10 math was. Get rid of all humans, and math goes away with them.

 

[stevevw]

Nah, you are just here to preach.

and

 

[Bradskii]

I do claim, as a point of logic, that it does prove that all morality is not subjective as apparently you and others claim.

If your child needs punishment then you can send her to her room. Maybe the room is in the basement. And you keep her there for ten minutes. Is that wrong? Well, I guess not. All children need to be disciplined.

Your next door neighbour does the same. But keeps his kid in the basement for ten years. Is that wrong? Obviously so, in my opinion. And I'll bet in yours as well. But is it objectively wrong? It would seem odd from your position to say that it's subjectively wrong. As you might say, 'find me someone could could possibly agree that it would be acceptable'.

So we have one situation where ten minutes is fine. And ten years isn't. And ten years is objectively bad (assuming that you agree on that).

At what point does it become objectively bad?

 

[stevevw]

You said we have to determine the rightness or wrongness. To determine involves human views and opinions.

We only have to determine if there is a truth or fact outside human views.

With a half dozen stones, I can provide undeniable objective proof that 2+2=4. Can you provide undeniable objective proof that rape is wrong? I don't think so.

The stones don't turn into the equation. Six stones ( actually 8) laid out on the ground doesn't mean anything unless there is such a thing as Math and multiplication. The equation and the numbers are abstract things. They don't exist as physical form.

So if human intuition has nothing to do with morality because morality is based outside of humans, what is morality based on?

I guess morality is like a code of right and wrong behaviour. We intuitively know what those right and wrong behaviours are. So we can sense/recognize them I guess. Its based on people treating those known morals like they are objective.

Whether people act in accordance with those moral objectives or not doesn't matter because its the fact that they create a moral code. We would not be able to say any horrible or barbaric behaviour was truely wrong if we didnt have these objective morals to measure things.

You don't need an independent standard of measure in order to say someone is wrong for sleeping with your wife, subjectivity does not require it.

Yes but that subjective opinion only means you think he is wrong. It doesnt say he is really wrong beyond you think.

What if the other person who slept with your wifr says "in my subjective view theres nothing wrong with sleeping with your wife". His opinion is just as valid as yours if we are just talking about moral opinions. Therefore you are at a stalemate where no one can say anything is "Truthfully" wrong.

No, humans agree on the shape of the earth, they don't agree on morals. You cannot compare the two.

So what about the "Flat Earth Society" they think the earth is flat. What about climate, consciousness, quantum physics, evolution, to name a few. People disagree with these and yet there is an objective fact about them being fact or not. Its the same for objective morals. There will be disagreement just like with science.

Human rational thinking is based strictly on human thought. Before you said objective morality is outside of human thought; which is it?

I think if you go back through my post I didnt say that objective morality is outside of human thought. I said objective morality is grounded or based outside peoples subjective thinking. The reason the seperation is needed is because as you know subjective thinking is all about the "Subject" being you or me or any person.

Its about how they see things. So you cannot base objectivity on how people see things otherwise you will get all sorts of answers about what is fact. Its the same with morality. For an objective moral you can't ground it on a persons views. You have to ground it on something outside people like some moral facts or truths that stand regardless of peoples views.

No, math IS agreed upon. If someone claimed 2+2=5, everybody that knows arithmetic will agree that person was wrong, and with a half dozen stones; I can prove them wrong.

So if you can prove them wrong by sharing out the stones then what evidence makes it correct. It can't be peoples personal views and just laying rocks out on the ground doesnt prove anything.

Its the abstract concept of the Math formula that makes it a fact. But the concept is not real. There is no physical part, the rocks are not the Math. The Math makes the rocks something, an equation that the rocks didnt possess before.

No, without humans there would be no such a thing as 2+2=4. If some intelligent being from another galaxy had 6 fingers on each hand, and they constructed a numeric and math system based on the number 12, that would not be something discovered, it would be invented just like our base 10 math was. Get rid of all humans, and math goes away with them.
No, without humans there would be no such a thing as 2+2=4. If some intelligent being from another galaxy had 6 fingers on each hand, and they constructed a numeric and math system based on the number 12, that would not be something discovered, it would be invented just like our base 10 math was. Get rid of all humans, and math goes away with them.

Math covers the entire universe so any alien would need to use the same logic and math we use as Math actually explains how the universe workd. There are perfected equated ratios that need to be exact and no human could have invented that as it already neeeded to be there to make the universe work.

In recent times scientists have discovered that the Universe is made up of precise Math. Too precise to be something invented by humans. That means Math was around before humans came along because the universe was there before humans. But it turns out its a bit of both. The equations and geometry were already there in the universe to make it worked. Math is just the language humans made to explain this.

The fact that 1 plus 1 equals 2, or that there’s an infinite number of primes, are truths about reality that held even before mathematicians knew about them. As such, they’re discoveries – but they were made using techniques invented by mathematicians. For example, according to Pythagoras’ theorem, the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. This is true for all right-angled triangles on a level surface, so it’s a discovery.

Showing it is true, however, requires the invention of a proof. And over the centuries, mathematicians have devised hundreds of different techniques capable of proving the theorem. In short, maths is both invented and discovered.
Was maths invented or discovered?

 

[Kylie]

but as I have also mentioned and which you seem to agree with, is that it doesnt matter if we use an extreme example of objective morality because if it shows objective morality then the task has been achieved. Why go to the hassle of using examples that may be harder to show or take more time and effort when a clear example will do.

Because extreme examples that everyone agrees with, like murder and rape, may be subjective but confused for being objective simply because everyone agrees with them. Far better to avoid that danger and use an example that not everyone agrees with. That way you can be sure that your conclusion has no risk on being based on an argument from popularity.

 

[Kylie]

"Stacks the deck", "manipulative", "deceitful", "ridiculous"? So it goes.


Instead of the ad hominems just admit that all morality is not subjective as you claimed. And, yes I do claim that every human act in the concrete is objectively moral or immoral. But to go there we first have to disabuse those who mistakenly claim that all morality is subjective. Are you yet disabused?

If you want to talk about ad hominems, how about the fact that you are using me pointing out how you are using flawed arguments, and then saying that my argument about morality is wrong because I am allegedly calling you names? That's the very definition of ad hominem.

Strawman fallacy. Please pay attention. I did not claim that because rape is objectively immoral that all morality is objective. I do claim, as a point of logic, that it does prove that all morality is not subjective as apparently you and others claim.

What? You didn't claim that it proves all morality is objective, you claim that it proves all morality is not subjective?

Please tell me, what's the functional difference between "objective" and "not subjective"?

 

[stevevw]

Because extreme examples that everyone agrees with, like murder and rape, may be subjective but confused for being objective simply because everyone agrees with them. Far better to avoid that danger and use an example that not everyone agrees with. That way you can be sure that your conclusion has no risk on being based on an argument from popularity.

Thats a logical fallacy that doesnt follow or justify not using those examples. In fact when you think about it killing, stealing, rape cover most of the moral laws as most others morals stem from them. Killing covers a lot because its about life being precious. So acts like assult, DV, abortion, deprivation, child abuse/neglect ect will have the same impact.

But what I notice is that many less extreme examples seem to have the same logic and reasoning so it doesnt really matter. So we shouldnt rape is similar to we shouldn't sexually harrass women or treat them as sexual objects. You can make arguemnets along the same logic as rape as to why they are wrong.

 

[Kylie]

Thats a logical fallacy that doesnt follow or justify not using those examples. In fact when you think about it killing, stealing, rape cover most of the moral laws as most others morals stem from them. Killing covers a lot because its about life being precious. So acts like assult, DV, abortion, deprivation, child abuse/neglect ect will have the same impact.

But what I notice is that many less extreme examples seem to have the same logic and reasoning so it doesnt really matter. So we shouldnt rape is similar to we shouldn't sexually harrass women or treat them as sexual objects. You can make arguemnets along the same logic as rape as to why they are wrong.

I've seen cases where men rape lesbians thinking it will make them straight. These people obviously think that the rape they are committing is morally right.

In any case, I'm still waiting to hear how we determine which of two different acts is the most moral. I keep being told that morality is objective, yet an objective method of description is apparently impossible to provide.

 

[Ken-1122]

We only have to determine if there is a truth or fact outside human views.

We’re not talking about truth or facts, we’re talking about morality.

The stones don't turn into the equation.

I never said they did! I said using a half dozen stones, I can provide undeniable objective proof that 2+2=4, not 5. Can you provide undeniable objective proof that rape is wrong?

I guess morality is like a code of right and wrong behaviour. We intuitively know what those right and wrong behaviours are. So we can sense/recognize them I guess.

What’s up with all of this guessing? Don’t you know? If morality were objective, it would be as obvious as the Tree in my front lawn, or 1+1=2. Again; what is morality based on if it is not based on human thought?

Yes but that subjective opinion only means you think he is wrong. It doesnt say he is really wrong beyond you think.

What if the other person who slept with your wifr says "in my subjective view theres nothing wrong with sleeping with your wife". His opinion is just as valid as yours if we are just talking about moral opinions. Therefore you are at a stalemate where no one can say anything is "Truthfully" wrong.

And how would things be different if morality were objective?

So what about the "Flat Earth Society" they think the earth is flat. What about climate, consciousness, quantum physics, evolution, to name a few. People disagree with these and yet there is an objective fact about them being fact or not. Its the same for objective morals. There will be disagreement just like with science.

Those things can be demonstrated as true; morality cannot.

For an objective moral you can't ground it on a persons views. You have to ground it on something outside people like some moral facts or truths that stand regardless of peoples views.

Give an example of a moral fact or truth that stands regardless of peoples views.

So if you can prove them wrong by sharing out the stones then what evidence makes it correct. It can't be peoples personal views and just laying rocks out on the ground doesnt prove anything.

Of course it does! I will have him count two rocks, agree that they are 2, then have him count two more rocks and agree that they are 2. I will then lay all the rocks together, have him count them and he will see they are 4. That is undeniable proof that 2+2=4

Math covers the entire universe so any alien would need to use the same logic and math we use as Math actually explains how the universe workd. There are perfected equated ratios that need to be exact and no human could have invented that as it already neeeded to be there to make the universe work.

In recent times scientists have discovered that the Universe is made up of precise Math. Too precise to be something invented by humans. That means Math was around before humans came along because the universe was there before humans. But it turns out its a bit of both. The equations and geometry were already there in the universe to make it worked. Math is just the language humans made to explain this.

Numbers and math are base 10 because humans have 10 fingers. If we had 12 fingers, it would be based on the number 12 and would be different than it is now. It would work the same way, and could be used to figure out the same things base 10 does now, but it would be different. Math is a system humans invented to calculate numbers; also a human invention

 

[stevevw]

No, I'm forcing him to stop doing something. He can feel however he wants to about that.

But if he thinks he is doing nothing wrong by his subjective morality aren' t you stopping him from expressing and living out his moral views.

Once again use the "Likes and Dislikes" for food that people use to explain subjective morality. It would be like you stopping someone from " Liking" peas because you think its wrong to eat peas. That doesnt make sense and is intolerant of peoples rights to have their own moral views.

Look at these two sentences:

I prefer to not eat Brussel sprouts.
I prefer that no one eats Brussel sprouts.

Those two sentences are different.

But like the rape example you are stopping someone doing something you hate. So if you apply the same logic from the rape example if you see someone eating brussel sprouts you will also stop them because you have brussle sprouts. IE

I hate rape so I will stop someone raping.
I hate brussel sprouts so I will stop someone eating brussel sprouts.

I don't say that anything is morally wrong. I will stop a rapist because he's doing something I hate, not because he made an "incorrect" choice.

So your saying there are no right and wrong choices in moral behaviour. That there is no better way to act morally than other ways to act morally.

How? By pulling him off the girl. Am I forcing him to live by my preference that folks don't rape? You bet! SO WHAT?

Well if there is no right and wrong moral behaviour and its only about your " Likes and Dislikes" then it seems rather strange to stop people because there doing something you dislike. If I see a person chewing gum I don't go and wrestle him to the ground and take the gum out of his mouth.

People can't just go around attacking people because they are doing something you hate. You' ve got to have a justified reason besides your pesonal "Likes and Dislikes" to do that.

No, I act in line with what I like and dislike. Feeling very strongly against something isn't the same as believing a fact. Your argument is a fallacy.

But how can we base stopping people from acting out their moral beliefs as you do based on feelings. Feelings are not a good measure of morality. Feelings can be wrong, erractic, unpredictable, misguided. Imagine condemning or denying people their right to live their moral views because you feel like you hate them.

Nothing is "morally wrong". Nothing is "morally right". Our choices on how to act aren't correct/incorrect; I find that to be a bizarre way to judge people's actions.

Yet I find subjective morality hard to accept and put into practice. You are saying there are not moral right and wrongs or correct/incorrect choices. I find it strange that we cannot look at moral behaviour and see of there is a better/best way to act morally based on our intuition about right and wrong.

Under a subjective system we cannot say that acts like stealing, rape, torture and child abuse are not really morally wrong in any ultimate way.

Yet we intuitively know that these acts are objectively wrong by the way we treat them as being wrong beyond our subjective thinking.

It appears that in moral reasoning, moral intuitions play the same role which observations do in science: we test general moral principles and moral theories by seeing how their consequences conform (or fail to conform) to our moral intuitions about particular cases. Richard Boyd Essays on Moral Realism, How to be a Moral Realist Page 184.

* Moral values and duties are simply self-evidence and intuitive.
If we see a child getting tortured, we don’t think that is how other people see the world and we should move on. No, we all think that must be stopped and justice must be done.
But why, because the idea of moral facts and duties are real and objective, is self-evident and is our intuitive starting point.

* The burden is on the sceptic to show that our intuitions are wrong not the moral realist.
* So even if we didn’t have any other arguments for moral realism this point on moral intuition would remain.
* It is the sceptic bears the burden of proof in this instance to show us our intuitive starting point is wrong.
* This is the point many philosophers make theist and atheist alike.
* In the sciences we decide between theories based on observations, which have an important degree of objectivity.

[/quote][/quote]

 

[Bradskii]

But if he thinks he is doing nothing wrong by his subjective morality aren' t you stopping him from expressing and living out his moral views.

So if morality is objective and he thinks he is doing nothing wrong by his subjective morality aren't you stopping him from expressing and living out his moral views? Obviously you are. Because you think you're right.

And if morality is subjective and he thinks he is doing nothing wrong by his subjective morality aren't I stopping him from expressing and living out his moral views? Obviously I am. Because I think I'm right.

And if the guy is assaulting a woman, then we're in agreement about us being right. And you've literally done nothing to show that what he was doing was objectively wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

But if he thinks he is doing nothing wrong by his subjective morality aren' t you stopping him from expressing and living out his moral views.

Yep! So what?

Once again use the "Likes and Dislikes" for food that people use to explain subjective morality. It would be like you stopping someone from " Liking" peas because you think its wrong to eat peas. That doesnt make sense and is intolerant of peoples rights to have their own moral views.

Yes, I am intolerant of other people's views sometimes, such as when they think rape is fun. No one has a "right" to anything. So what?

But like the rape example you are stopping someone doing something you hate. So if you apply the same logic from the rape example if you see someone eating brussel sprouts you will also stop them because you have brussle sprouts. IE

I hate rape so I will stop someone raping.
I hate brussel sprouts so I will stop someone eating brussel sprouts.

Nope. I hate eating Brussel sprouts. I don't care if someone else eats Brussel sprouts.

So your saying there are no right and wrong choices in moral behaviour. That there is no better way to act morally than other ways to act morally.

There are no correct/incorrect acts.

Well if there is no right and wrong moral behaviour and its only about your " Likes and Dislikes" then it seems rather strange to stop people because there doing something you dislike.

What's strange about it? You do things to prevent stuff you dislike all the time too. It's the same thing it just involves other people.

People can't just go around attacking people because they are doing something you hate. You' ve got to have a justified reason besides your pesonal "Likes and Dislikes" to do that.

I just walked into the other room and gave my wife a slap on her bum because I felt like it. No justified reason. So I guess I can just go around attacking people without a justified reason.

It isn't "morally wrong" for me to act without a justified reason because there is no "morally wrong" and there is no "morally right". But that's what you're thinking isn't it?

But how can we base stopping people from acting out their moral beliefs as you do based on feelings.

The same way you act to affect things you like/dislike all the time.

Feelings are not a good measure of morality.

They are the only way we measure morality.

Yet I find subjective morality hard to accept and put into practice. You are saying there are not moral right and wrongs or correct/incorrect choices. I find it strange that we cannot look at moral behaviour and see of there is a better/best way to act morally based on our intuition about right and wrong.

Your "intuition" is just your feelings, bub.

Under a subjective system we cannot say that acts like stealing, rape, torture and child abuse are not really morally wrong in any ultimate way.

Nothing is "really morally wrong in any ultimate way". So what? As we've discussed I can still affect people's behavior to prevent them from stealing, raping, and torturing even though morality isn't objective. So again and again, so what?

Yet we intuitively know that these acts are objectively wrong by the way we treat them as being wrong beyond our subjective thinking.

Please stop just declaring victory by telling me what I believe. That I act in ways that attempt to affect the world in ways I like is not a claim that the world ought to be the way I like. When I buy chocolate ice cream at the store, that is not me believing that my freezer ought to have chocolate ice cream inside.

 

[stevevw]

No, I'm forcing him to stop doing something. He can feel however he wants to about that.

But if he thinks he is doing nothing wrong by his subjective morality aren' t you stopping him from expressing and living out his moral views.

Once again use the "Likes and Dislikes" for food that people use to explain subjective morality. It would be like you stopping someone from " Liking" peas because you think its wrong to eat peas. That doesnt make sense and is intolerant of peoples rights to have their own moral views.

Look at these two sentences:

I prefer to not eat Brussel sprouts.
I prefer that no one eats Brussel sprouts.

Those two sentences are different.

But like the rape example you are stopping someone doing something you hate. So if you apply the same logic from the rape example if you see someone eating brussel sprouts you will also stop them because you have brussle sprouts. IE

I hate rape so I will stop someone raping.
I hate brussel sprouts so I will stop someone eating brussel sprouts.

I don't say that anything is morally wrong. I will stop a rapist because he's doing something I hate, not because he made an "incorrect" choice.

So your saying there are no right and wrong choices in moral behaviour.

How? By pulling him off the girl. Am I forcing him to live by my preference that folks don't rape? You bet! SO WHAT?

Well if there is no right and wrong moral behaviour and its only about your " Likes and Dislikes" then it seems rather strange to stop people because there doing something you dislike. If I see a person chewing gum I don't go and wrestle him to the ground and take the gum out of his mouth.

People can't just go around attacking people because they are doing something you hate. You' ve got to have a justified reason besides your pesonal "Likes and Dislikes" to do that.

No, I act in line with what I like and dislike. Feeling very strongly against something isn't the same as believing a fact. Your argument is a fallacy.

But how can we base stopping people from acting out their moral beliefs as you do based on feelings. Feelings are not a good measure of morality. Feelings can be wrong, erractic, unpredictable, misguided. Imagine condemning or denying people their right to live their moral views because you feel like you hate them.

Nothing is "morally wrong". Nothing is "morally right". Our choices on how to act aren't correct/incorrect; I find that to be a bizarre way to judge people's actions.

I actually find that subjective morality something strange and counter intuitive. UNder this system we are to believe that we can never really say some horrible things like rape, child abuse or torture are never really wrong. That goes against everything humans are.

If my position is so bizarre why do the majority of people including philosophers think moral realism (objective morals outside peoples views) is the correct position to take.

What do philosophers think about moral realism?
The 2009 PhilPapers survey asked just under a thousand philosophers and philosophy graduate students about moral realism, and discovered that 56.4% were moral realists, 27.7% weren’t, and 15.9% held some other position.
for every philosopher who thinks there aren’t any objective moral facts, two philosophers think there are.
But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.

But if the question was not “is moral realism true” but “is there a good case to be made for moral realism”, I suspect the percentage would jump from 56.4% to somewhere in the high nineties. The moral sceptic will certainly be able to find philosophers who agree with him that there aren’t any objective moral facts. However, he won’t be able to find many philosophers who agree with him that moral realists are all horribly confused. He might not be able to find any.

Take the claim “it is objectively wrong to torture your infant son to death for fun”. To me, this claim seems to be as secure as what I can see with my own eyes. In fact, it seems more so: if I somehow became convinced that either I was hallucinating or torturing my infant son to death for fun was right, I would immediately assume I was hallucinating. This claim certainly seems more secure than claims like “moral realism is a bit weird”, or “if people disagree about morality, there might be no right answer”.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

Western adults seem to regard moral properties as objective, at least more so than social conventions or taste properties, but less so than scientific facts (Goodwin & Darley 2008).
https://www.newappsblog.com/2013/01/folk-metaethics-does-moral-realism-motivate-us-to-act-more-morally-and-if-so-why.html

It seems to lots of us as if suffering is bad; the claim is obvious, plausible, commonsensical, and self-evident.6 Arguably, everyone at-least-tacitly considers appearances to be evidence.7 Similarly, it seems as if stealing is wrong, even if you like to steal, and even if you trick someone into believing that stealing isn’t wrong. So there’s plenty of intuitive evidence that these ethical truths are objective: their truth doesn’t vary based on any particular person’s situation or preferences.
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2015/11/05/ethical-realism/[/quote][/quote]