I disagree. There are many positions you could take on those issues.
When it comes to objective morality there are not many positions and that is what I am talking about. You said there are more than one objective position for objective morality. That cannot be otherwise it is undermining an objective moral position.
You can’t just say stealing (the legal definition of stealing) is wrong, because there are too many instances when stealing is not wrong. The same can be said for the what is legally called child abuse, what is legally called rape, and all the other examples you gave; each of those examples must be taken on a case by case basis because there are too many exceptions to the rule
You said
"each of those examples must be taken on a case by case basis because there are too many exceptions to the rule" Saying there are exceptions to the rule is acknowledging there is an objective position. That means those exception have to be determined as justified or unjustified to that rule or objective. If they are not justified then they are not moral. If they are justifiedthenthis does not mean that this is a different morel view. The person still has the view that the moral rule or objective hold its position. They just allow a rare exception on moral grounds becuase the exxception may be breaching another objective moral that also needs to be upheld. All the other exceptions which would be classed as subjective views are ruled out. That still upholds objective morality.
If there were a single best answer to all moral problems, we would have discovered this best solution by now. There is no such thing as a best solution that everybody can agree on.
Everyone does not have to agree for it to be an objective moral position. They can still keep their subjective view if they want. IT is just saying that their subjective view has been shown to be not the best moral position and the objective moral position has. We have been doing this for years. Just about everyone agrees that killing, stealing, raping, child abuse are wrong. WE show this by the laws we have. We know this because if we did not stop these things our societies would fall into disorder and anarchy and it would cause a lot of problems and threaten our survival. Those who disagree are rare and we say they are wrong by the fact we have the laws. We will punish them and put them in jail if they breach these laws.
Killing for money could involve another moral as well.
It may well do such as a personal moral view. But can that be justified. Will science show it is bad for others and society or even the person themselves.
Killing for money could have a justification for being best for human wellbeing. But even if it couldn’t, morality is not defined as what is best for human wellbeing. That sounds like something you just subjectively made up. If you disagree, provide a definition of morality that includes human well being.
I already have several times. Morals can only apply to conscious humans and conscious humans have a certain state that needs to be upheld for them to thrive and live a happy life otherwise it can effect everyone and society and threaten our survival. It is better to have a happy world than a miserable world. Humans have known this since the beginning of time and that is why we restrict certain moral acts. Science can show as a fact what certain moral acts do that lead to threatening our existence for the victim, the perpetrator and society.
So when someone says that they believe their moral view is OK we can measure that on how that effects people and either promotes of denies wellbeing. If they say they dont care about all that it still shows their position as bad for the wellbing of others which has already been determined as the best and necessary position if we are to have a happy world and survive. Even so we can also show how it affects them and expose their position as being wrong for themselves which is a illogical moral position to have and brings into question their ability to understand right from wrong. .
It does answer the question. Just because I personally believe slavery was wrong, doesn’t mean my belief is based on fact. I recognize my belief is based on my opinion.
People can disagree about whether slavery from money is good or bad but it does not answer "is slavery for money truly bad". I was trying to differentiate between subjective and objective moral view. Yes your view about slavery for money is your view and the next person can have their view and so on. But when you debate whether it is good or bad how do you determine who is really right, (objectively right). Under subjective morality you cannot ever really know and therefore it is just a useless circular debate that has no ultimate conclusion.
Why even debate about it as each person would just counter the other with any subjective belief about slavery for money. You could not say to someone else who said enfoorcing young girls into sexual slavery so they can make money is bad. You can only say it is a different view from yours. The moment yoy say it is wrong you are appealing to an objective standard of meeasurement.
Everybody brings their own measuring stick to the debate. That’s why I insist morality is subjective; not objective.
We seem to to have a communication breakdown. I am not saying there are no subjective moral views and that people have no right to have them. For the reasons I have given above I say there is also an objective moral position that we can measure those subjective views against. We live by an objective moral position everyday when we top others from doing certain moral acts becuase it is against the law. We live objective morals when we try to argue that our moral position is right and the other person is wrong and should be stopped, we live objective morals when we react badly as though it is an injustice to someone who steals against us or who attacks our family or abuses our children.
That is not the criteria for morality. If you disagree, provide a definition of morality that includes human wellbeing; otherwise, I will assume this is just something you are making up.
I have many times including above. I am beginning to think you are just ignoring this or not understanding things.
It CAN be regarded as wrong; but doing so would be another subjective opinion of “wrong”. Wrong is not defined as an act that prevents humans from achieving specific states of being. This sounds like something else you just arbitrarily made up.
It can be regarded as wrong when it destroys the very fabric that holds our society together and threatens our survival. This is also an evolutionary fact when they say that certain moral positions were determined as best so that they allowed people to live tgether in harmony otherwise the conflict from these acts would disrupt things and cause conflicts which wil lead to harm and threaten our very survival. So we can measure these concequences through sciences like human behavior, psychology, cause and effect, neurology, etc.
These findings are scientific facts that we have known and built up over decades and are getting better at it. IE you do act A and it causes consequence B. Consequence B has been scientifically proven to do this and this which affects humans in this way and denies or contributes to bad effects on human happiness, wellbeing, survival etc. What ever ypou want to call it that is going to make this world a miserable, horrible place and we will slowly deteriorate and not survive.
I can agree with you about human wellbeing as the best way, but not everybody agrees with you or I. Because other people have other ideas of what constitutes the best way, this shows subjectivity; not objectivity.
But the key here as I have been trying to show above is that human wellbeing is not just you or mine opinion. It is a scientific reasoned fact which makes it independent from yours or mine or anyones moral opinion or view. So that means it can show that the persons view who disagrees is wrong becuase it is not you or me that is telling them they are wrong but indpendent facts.
Yes; I’m sure it does seem that way to you, but it doesn’t seem that way to everybody else.
Thats fair enough and I dont deny anyone to have their moral view. But can it be justified and shown to be truly good and right. Is there a measure we can use to find this out. Most people use something about how the moral act effects humans as a measure for whether it is good or bad and I believe this is a natural thing to do. So if we have views that are negatively affecting humans most of us will say this is wrong.
