And what if the truth of that matter is the moral truths are only ever SUBJECTIVE, and not OBJECTIVE? You seem incapable of comprehending this concept.
I do understand the concept and I am not saying subjective morality doesn't exist. I am saying its insufficient for explaining morality. Its an impossible and self defeating concept to support. You just proposed an objective claim that the objective truth is that morals are subjective. See how it is self defeating. We can't help but appeal to objectives when it comes to morality.
There's nothing to indicate that things MUST be objective if they are important.
Yes there is you just expressed an objective about morality. There is no better evidence that comes from the person who refutes objective morality. If you want to now claim that you didn't mean objective in those terms then your argument that there is only subjective morality falls down. Proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Are you suggesting that ALL religions agree completely on moral issues? There are conflicting moral positions even between different sects of Christianity!
Christianity is following Christs teachings which is biblical. Christs teachings are followed by all Christian denominations and consistent such as don't murder, don't steal, don't bear false witness, don't abuse kids, be just, life is sovereign, anti-discrimination (there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free we are all equal to God), love others as you love yourself, don't commit adultery, there is only one God etc.. All Christians must strive to be Christlike.
But I think you will find that these core morals well at least most of them are consistent across all religions and scientific research supports this where they found that babies and infants displayed similar core morals like fairness, equality and treating others kindly regardless of belief or cultural upbringing.
I think regardless of what religion even no religion or in isolated tribes around the world people will object to certain behaviors within the community. Like stealing, it has no racial or religious boundaries. People don't want their stuff taken. It seems a breach of trust and respect and undermines the community by breading resentment and distrust.
I've pointed out multiple times now that a claim about morality does not need to be a claim about morals. Saying, "It is objectively true that moral positions are subjective" does NOT require that those moral positions must be objective.
I read this a couple of times and cannot see what you mean. You have just contradicted yourself. Saying its objectively true is saying its the case beyond subjective opinions. Otherwise you have just introduced a new meaning of objective truth. It sort of defeats the idea of objective truth so you can't really make any claims.
Even if it meant the actual system of morality as to whether its subjective or objective requires a determination. If someone claims that there is no objective morality but rather only subjective morality then unless there is an objective determination its a pointless and baseless claim because there's no way to tell either way. It then becomes a declaration or a self projected psychological state.
By your logic, I can say that when someone claims that Star Trek being better than Star Wars is relative/subjective they are making an objective claim about whether Star Trek is better than Star Wars. And therefore, there is an objective truth about whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better. Can you see where the error is here? If you can see it, then I have to wonder why you can't see that you are making the same error in your argument.
I know what you are implying I just cannot see any valid reasoning. You can't make the claim that 'better' can be determined by the subjective/relative because its a contradiction in terms. When someone claims that Star Trek is better they have already made an objective claim full stop. Introducing subjective/relative morality into this situation just undermines their own claim otherwise.
You can say I objectively like Star Trek over Star wars. But that is just acknowledging that you own psychological state exists. I think your conflation the category of what morality is with the actual claims within the category.
Yet it's easy to show that different people have different moral positions.
I think its easy to show people have similar moral views as well. So what does this prove on its own as you have pointed out. Arguments for objective morality don't just rely on moral agreement though it seems that agreement seems to be something science uses to support materialism. So why can't agreement be relevant for morality. We don't just agree for the sake of it but agree for good reason.
The thing is if there was only subjective morality then language and behavior that expresses objective moral truth is a problem for subjective morality to explain because to say its just a coincident is undermining the individual as delusionary which I think is counteractive to how we know ourselves. Whereas if there are objective moral truths subjective morality is no threat as we know there are different views on morality and this doesn't exclude the fact that morality can be objective.
Like I said everything we do is subjective as we are subjects in the world. But we can also as subjects determine the difference between our personal views and those that have truth value beyond our personal views.
And as I've explained countless times, that is easily explainable by evolution.
Is it really explainable by evolution. I think there are many Hard Problems with evolution and subjective consciousness. Broadly evolution would have us determined by our genes and NS. We have no free will or agency otherwise evolution would have to explain the subjects role in controlling their own evolution as a force apart for a naturalistic process. Do you notice that all the sciences seem to diminish our sense of self and control over the world.
Evolution doesn't explain morality it just makes a claim as to how it may have come about. There is an explanatory gap between that claim and how something abstract like morals can come from mutations. This is called the genetic fallacy.
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content.
en.wikipedia.org
Your position must be weak indeed if it can't handle being used in a real-world situation.
I think it is real world applicable because we actually do it in the real world. We have been doing it and revealing moral truths throughout history by living them out under trial and error. We can't help but do it because that is the nature of morality.
But if there is some objective measure, then you can show it. Can you do the same thing with morality?
Are you saying we should measure morality like in science where morality must be something physical/material otherwise it doesn't exist.
