That goes against subjective morality because subjective morality should be tolerant of different views. Your not being tolerant of different moral views thus are undermining your own moral position.
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 to say your intolerant sometimes is to admit there must be some objective measure of when to be tolerant or not.
Nope. I hate eating Brussel sprouts. I don't care if someone else eats Brussel sprouts.
Yet you hate rape and do care if someone else rapes. So your brussel sprout comparison doesn' t match your moral position. At least your position on rape. So therefore its inconsistent.
There are no correct/incorrect acts.
So torturing children is not incorrect behaviour. Morality is a rational enterprise. I can determine the correct way to behave as opposed to other ways to behave by reasoning and logic.
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.
LIke I said we don't go around stopping people eating peas because we hate peas. Apply this logic to morality and it doesn't work. What if the person who rapes "likes" raping. Aren't you stopping someone who likes rape. Doesn't he have the right to view rape this way if there is no moral right and wrongs and therefore is doing nothing wrong.
Why are you stopping someone doing something they like. What gives you the right to do that. Disliking something isnt a justified reason as that only applies to you and not others.
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.
No because you did have a justified reason because that is your wife and you are close and allow that. Try doing that to a work college you don't know in the middle of the office and see how long you will last in your job.
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?
No I am thinking of how you can apply that logic to slapping the backside of one of your co-workers and justify it as OK because there is no moral right and wrong.
The same way you act to affect things you like/dislike all the time.
Yeah, I guess I try to remove myself from the situation or maybe ask if they can stop or say nothing in social situations. It's a hard one as in todays society people are stopped (deplatformed) for even speaking about their opinions of morality let alone going around and actually making people conform to your " Likes and Dislikes" Seems strange.
So I find it hard to imagine someone going around stopping people who do things you dislike. Especially in a social moral situation. The person who was doing the stopping would be likewise stopped and everyone would be running around stopping each other for not liking or disliking certain things, behaviours, food, ect.
I don' t think people go arounnd forcing others to stop based on their subjective feelings or preferences. Otherwise you are forcing your "Likes and Dislikes" onto others who have their "Likes and Dislikes". What if the person doing the thing you dislike happens to like doing it. Aren' t you stopping someone doing something they think is OK. Won't they in turn stop you under subjective thinking.
They are the only way we measure morality.
So your saying the measure of morality is inconsistent and arbitrary because thats how feekings work. One person says I feel abusing kids if fine. The other says I feel abusing kids is wrong. How do we tell who is right if there is no right or wrong. That means the person who feels abusing kids is fine is not really doing anything wrong.
Your "intuition" is just your feelings, bub.
Intuitions have been proven to be more than feelings. They are about a persons experience of morals which are reasoned out when determining what is right and wrong.
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.
One of the most distinctive features of Ethical Intuitionism is its epistemology. All of the classic intuitionists maintained that basic moral propositions are self-evident—that is, evident in and of themselves—and so can be known without the need of any argument.
Intuition is immediate apprehension by the understanding. It is the way that we apprehend self-evident truths, general and abstract ideas,
So it looks like we can find two notions of intuition in intuitionist thought—one understood as an intellectual seeming or apprehension, and the other as a pre-theoretical, non-inferred, firmly held belief or conviction.[2]
Intuitions are Used as Evidence in Philosophy
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?
I think the wrongs you have identified like rape, stealing, torturing are also wrong by law which gives some objective value because their written in law.
But I am interested in if the same logic applies to social situations. For example if a friend cheats on your wife or people are greedy and deny others. If the same logic applies then under subjective thinking we should be able to stop anyone breaking social morals you hate like the above mentioned examples. That would seem strange that we are not consistent moral position.
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.
OK Sorry if I made you think that. I guess I am a little confused. I am not trying to imply anyone who does not think there are objective morals or truths doesn't know morality or have a sense of right and wrong. I understand you say there is no ultimate right and wrong.
I am just having trouble trying to link "Likes and Dislikes", preferences, all the subjective reasons that don't ground anything into something I think does need some grounding because it matters more than our subjective thinking. In general we intuitively act like moral matters "Matter" and we need to be able to stand on some objective ground to sort them.
I don't think you can apply that same logic to subjective thinking like preferences, opinions and feelings. As subjective thinking varies it could mean people stopping others for all sorts of moral behaviour in social situations.
