Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

No, its just semantics.

If its just semantics then why do we see many articles by moral philosophers about the difference between subjective and objective morality and how it is applied to real life. IE
How Morality Has The Objectivity That Matters—Without God
To claim that moral judgments are subjective is to claim that they are true or false based on how a particular person feels. That’s not how most of us regard moral judgments.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry
Moral Realism
The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.”
Moral Realism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Morality is subjective preference, but it can be objectively wrong
People are often unwilling to think of ethics as their own preferences, rather than demands from something more transcendent. For instance, it’s normal to claim that one really wants to make one choice, but it’s only ethical to make the other.
Morality is subjective preference, but it can be objectively wrong

And I dont think you really understand the consequences of a objective morality. You understand that all the world fanatics like ISIS or NeoNazis or very conservative christians all say they have the answer to what constitues ”objective morals” but they all have different morals. How do you prove which is correct? How do you reason with someone who believes they have the ”correct” morals without room for change or error?

First it's a logical fallacy to that because there are several groups claiming objective morality that this must mean that there cannot be objective morality. It may be that those claiming this is wrong and are actually using subjective morality.

It's also an oxymoron to say there are many objective moral systems at the same time. Most of the time you can expose these people who claim to hold the truth to morality. You just look at their actions compared to what they claim. Like for instance the IRA were Protestants and Catholics. Both believed in a Christian God which was against killing yet killed women and children. Same as fundamentalist Christians who live in contradiction to Christ's love and ISIS well they just do everything wrong. They actually don't even follow their own beliefs. They support organized crime and are hypocrites.

But the ironic thing is these examples you give are not the only ones. Any corporation of western government who imposes certain moral ideologies, regulations, and laws like anti-discrimination laws, gender language regulations, socially engineering society to follow certain moral ideals they believe best.

Western nations have been branding imperialist ideals for years in poor nations. The UN, NATO, WHO, World Bank have their own brand of morality they like to dictate to others. Globalization sees big corporations dictate 3rd world countries except they do it by stealth through economic control. The problem with subjective morality is that it allows certain powerful people and organizations to end up dictating their version of morality on others.

 

[stevevw]

Not quite, we can see certain ”fairness” that seems like an instinct. But intincts isnt something that supports ”objective morals”.

We can see fairness at work but not fairness itself as an object. We can also see the things I mentioned at work like faith, hope, anger, hate, spirituality. These are intuitive to us which can be support for objective morality. It can show we know certain rights and wrongs like natural laws. We don't have to be shown them we just know and everyone appears to have the same knowledge about what is right and wrong.


Intuitionism teaches three main things:
* There are real objective moral truths that are independent of human beings.
* These are fundamental truths that can't be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything except other moral truths.
* Human beings can discover these truths by using their minds in a particular, intuitive way.
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Intuitionism
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 skeptic to show that our intuitions are wrong not the moral realist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

I reject the existance of metaphysics beyond our imagination.

Do you mean just in philosophy? Otherwise this is a strange position to take as its just an outlook more than anything to believe in about existence and the nature of things that exist. Many things that we all acknowledge as being something like time, space, our identities, are associated with metaphysics. But even when you say the imagination what do you mean as this is an interesting field of study.

And as you cant tell where ”objective morals” are located or what they entail its a meaningless concept. Its just someting you really really wish to be true so you can say that you are so very right in your values without the need to reflect.

That's a silly logical fallacy that because we cannot locate it that it is meaningless. There are many things in philosophy and science that we believe are real but cannot locate them. Does that mean they are all meaningless? What about identity and time where are they. Are they meaningless? We haven't really been able to locate our mind (consciousness) or dark energy so does that make these meaningless. I don't think so.

 

[stevevw]

You seem determined to misrepresent my position.

As you can see I was using a 3rd person IE "what about if someone". I understand that you have your position but I was trying to clarify things.

I was asking you a hypothetical that if when someone makes a stand that an act is morally wrong, are not they taking a moral position to others, the world that what they are protesting about and saying is wrong, is actually wrong. Rather than "I think" it's wrong" which sort of undermines their position as they are not being sure about thinks and that they may be wrong.

I'd like to think that when people say that something is wrong and putting it out there they are making a "truth statement" and choosing to side with either "it's wrong or it's right". Not " I think it is but I'm not sure as its only my opinion.

The usual assumption is that ordinary people treat moral judgments as getting at something objective
Do People Actually Believe in Objective Moral Truths? « On the Human

Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken.
This is the way many of us tend to think and talk about many moral issues, not just murder. We refer to moral facts. And we prove our moral stance is the correct one by appealing to these facts.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself

I've already tried to explain it to you. I see no reason to further try to explain it when it's clear to me that you apparently just don't want to understand where I am coming from.

OK fair enough, Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You think oysters are disgusting but being an Aussie I love them.

 

[stevevw]

You and I have been over this. There are no correct or incorrect behaviors, just people acting out how they like. You can disagree with me, but it ain't cool to tell me you can read my mind.

OK, fair enough, I disagree with you. I have explained how "likes and dislikes" don't equate to morality just like wellbeing doesn't.

I saw your link to that study, and it doesn't establish that. All the infants did was select the helpful puppet. Well, so what? Everyone likes helping people. That doesn't mean that being helpful is the correct way to be, it just means that people like not having to do things on their own or by themselves. Being helpful isn't intrinsically good or right. For instance, when I was a kid I used to shoplift, and my friends helped me by distracting the store owners. I liked my helpful friends for immoral ends.
And I would be remiss to mention that those infants are not blank slates. Six months is young, sure, but that's six months of crying for help with things they can't do for themselves, receiving help, and reinforcing the feeling that people who help are good. So not only is the thing they're shown to like not intrinsically good, but it isn't established that their feeling is innate either.

The paper clearly states that babies know right from wrong not "babies can tell when someone is helpful. This is was an obvious factor to factor out in these tests and if you read the paper it clearly states this was about knowing "right from wrong" and that babies can make moral judgments and that this is hard-wired into the brain and not something taught. This makes sense and supports our intuition that we know right from wrong.

The researchers have found babies as young as six months old already make moral judgments, and they think we may be born with a moral code hard-wired into our brains.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
The Moral Life of Babies[/quote][/quote]

 

[VirOptimus]

If its just semantics then why do we see many articles by moral philosophers about the difference between subjective and objective morality and how it is applied to real life. IE
How Morality Has The Objectivity That Matters—Without God
To claim that moral judgments are subjective is to claim that they are true or false based on how a particular person feels. That’s not how most of us regard moral judgments.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry
Moral Realism
The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.”
Moral Realism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Morality is subjective preference, but it can be objectively wrong
People are often unwilling to think of ethics as their own preferences, rather than demands from something more transcendent. For instance, it’s normal to claim that one really wants to make one choice, but it’s only ethical to make the other.
Morality is subjective preference, but it can be objectively wrong
First it's a logical fallacy to that because there are several groups claiming objective morality that this must mean that there cannot be objective morality. It may be that those claiming this is wrong and are actually using subjective morality.

It's also an oxymoron to say there are many objective moral systems at the same time. Most of the time you can expose these people who claim to hold the truth to morality. You just look at their actions compared to what they claim. Like for instance the IRA were Protestants and Catholics. Both believed in a Christian God which was against killing yet killed women and children. Same as fundamentalist Christians who live in contradiction to Christ's love and ISIS well they just do everything wrong. They actually don't even follow their own beliefs. They support organized crime and are hypocrites.

But the ironic thing is these examples you give are not the only ones. Any corporation of western government who imposes certain moral ideologies, regulations, and laws like anti-discrimination laws, gender language regulations, socially engineering society to follow certain moral ideals they believe best.

Western nations have been branding imperialist ideals for years in poor nations. The UN, NATO, WHO, World Bank have their own brand of morality they like to dictate to others. Globalization sees big corporations dictate 3rd world countries except they do it by stealth through economic control. The problem with subjective morality is that it allows certain powerful people and organizations to end up dictating their version of morality on others.

No, just no.

If you cant show where objective morality is located, what it is, what it entails or how to know it then its a useless concept.

Its just like god(s), its a belief without data or evidence to back it up.

 

[VirOptimus]

OK, fair enough, I disagree with you. I have explained how "likes and dislikes" don't work with morality.

The paper clearly states that babies know right from wrong not "babies can tell when someone is helpful. This is was an obvious factor to factor out in these tests and if you read the paper it clearly states this was about knowing "right from wrong" and that babies can make moral judgments and that this is hard-wired into the brain and not something taught. This makes sense and supports our intuition that we know right from wrong.

The researchers have found babies as young as six months old already make moral judgments, and they think we may be born with a moral code hard-wired into our brains.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
The Moral Life of Babies

Even if true, and I wont read anything you link to because of your posting history, that would not support a ”objective morality”, just that we are born with instincts.

 

[VirOptimus]

We can see fairness at work but not fairness itself as an object. We can also see the things I mentioned at work like faith, hope, anger, hate, spirituality. These are intuitive to us which can be support for objective morality. It can show we know certain rights and wrongs like natural laws. We don't have to be shown them we just know and everyone appears to have the same knowledge about what is right and wrong.


Intuitionism teaches three main things:
* There are real objective moral truths that are independent of human beings.
* These are fundamental truths that can't be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything except other moral truths.
* Human beings can discover these truths by using their minds in a particular, intuitive way.
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Intuitionism
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 skeptic to show that our intuitions are wrong not the moral realist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

Do you mean just in philosophy? Otherwise this is a strange position to take as its just an outlook more than anything to believe in about existence and the nature of things that exist. Many things that we all acknowledge as being something like time, space, our identities, are associated with metaphysics. But even when you say the imagination what do you mean as this is an interesting field of study.

That's a silly logical fallacy that because we cannot locate it that it is meaningless. There are many things in philosophy and science that we believe are real but cannot locate them. Does that mean they are all meaningless? What about identity and time where are they. Are they meaningless? We haven't really been able to locate our mind (consciousness) or dark energy so does that make these meaningless. I don't think so.

You should read the authors I suggested upthread.

As an aside, we do know where our mind is, its in our brain. You keep asserting the stupidest things.

We also know how time works.

 

[Moral Orel]

The paper clearly states that babies know right from wrong not "babies can tell when someone is helpful. This is was an obvious factor to factor out in these tests and if you read the paper it clearly states this was about knowing "right from wrong" and that babies can make moral judgments and that this is hard-wired into the brain and not something taught. This makes sense and supports our intuition that we know right from wrong.

First of all, those are articles written by journalists, not scientific "papers", so you have to take their sensationalism with a grain of salt.

Secondly though. read what the actual experiments were. They showed the infants a puppet show. One puppet was trying to do something, like open a box, one puppet helped them, then a different puppet stopped them. Afterwards, they asked the infants to choose which puppet they liked more, and most chose the puppet that was helpful. That's it. It is a huge astronomical leap from "Most infants chose the puppet that was helpful" to "Infants have knowledge of right and wrong".

And as I said previously, being helpful isn't intrinsically good, nor is a 6-month old a test of innateness.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'd like to think that when people say that something is wrong and putting it out there they are making a "truth statement" and choosing to side with either "it's wrong or it's right". Not " I think it is but I'm not sure as its only my opinion.

I know you'd like to think that, but that doesn't make it true. Look, I agree with you that people should be less sloppy with their word choice, but when someone tells you what they mean by what they've said, you can't tell them that they actually mean what you want them to. People still use "right" and "wrong" even when they're speaking subjectively. I find that grammatically irritating, but it doesn't mean they instinctively believe they're speaking objectively.

Ya know, the kids these days like to say "cool" when they mean "awesome" but you wouldn't tell them that they're really talking about a temperature, would you? After all, temperatures are things we can measure objectively, so they must mean it objectively, right?

 

[stevevw]

No, just no.

If you cant show where objective morality is located, what it is, what it entails or how to know it then its a useless concept.

Its just like god(s), its a belief without data or evidence to back it up.

Then why do most philosophers support that morals are objective?

 

[stevevw]

You should read the authors I suggested upthread.

I have read those authors if you talking about value nihilism. But like nihilism which takes the philosophical position that believes nothing and no purpose I cannot see how we could even debate morals. Hägerström basically didn’t believe in value judgments as he thought there was no scientific evidence to support values. But this does not take into consideration that values and morals are metaphysical propositions and can be supported through logical arguments and the indirect effects they have on people.

Science, ethicists, and philosophers use this form of evidence all the time and it is acceptable in other areas so why not moral values. If we didn’t then we would not be able to propose things like gravity, time and motion, dark matter, love, spirituality, consciousness, or any non-physical aspect of life that we all know is real because we live like it is real. I can see why you say that you don't support the metaphysical but that is contrary to most people. So why should I go along with a minority view which really hasn't any support?

As an aside, we do know where our mind is, its in our brain. You keep asserting the stupidest things.

The mind/body (consciousness) is one of the biggest mysteries to science and despite what you say we don't know where consciousness it is one of the most contested areas of science today. But then you are making an objective claim again about metaphysical things which you cannot have evidence for so perhaps you are coming from a biased position, to begin with. So it seems you do believe there is evidence for some metaphysical things but pick and choose when it's valid.

Consciousness is everything we experience, the individualness of experiences such as your taste for something, how people remember specific songs, experience the same things differently, experience pain, and love for our children. This is known as qualia and has been a mystery for 100s of years and we are still no closer to understand it.

In fact, it is what subjective morality is based on so many subjectivists would disagree with you. How could a 1.5kg piece of flesh produce such immaterial and varied experiences? It doesn't make sense if we are just moist robots running on chemical and electrical reactions.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness
The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious. It is the problem of explaining why there is “something it is like” for a subject in conscious experience, why conscious mental states “light up” and directly appear to the subject. The usual methods of science involve an explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness, therefore, presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain.
Hard Problem of Consciousness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Mind Body Debate
https://www.simplypsychology.org/mindbodydebate.html

As Thomas Nagel said
“To say that there is more to reality than physics can account for is not a piece of mysticism: it is an acknowledgment that we are nowhere near a theory of everything, and that science will have to expand to accommodate facts of a kind fundamentally different from those that physics is designed to explain.”

We also know how time works.

How does this dispute that time is still something that is not materially experienced but only measured by its results? And we don't fully know if our measurement of time is correct by the way. We know time through our current theory but that is only based on what we can experience in our part of the universe of space-time. Who says that there is an overarching reality that makes our understanding of time wrong. That seems to have some merit with quantum physics.

 

[stevevw]

First of all, those are articles written by journalists, not scientific "papers", so you have to take their sensationalism with a grain of salt.

Secondly though. read what the actual experiments were. They showed the infants a puppet show. One puppet was trying to do something, like open a box, one puppet helped them, then a different puppet stopped them. Afterwards, they asked the infants to choose which puppet they liked more, and most chose the puppet that was helpful. That's it. It is a huge astronomical leap from "Most infants chose the puppet that was helpful" to "Infants have knowledge of right and wrong".

And as I said previously, being helpful isn't intrinsically good, nor is a 6-month old a test of innateness.

Actually the article is a short summary of a book that goes into a lot of research and detail on the topic so it isn't some short sensationalized representation. If you check out other articles you will find more detail about what was involved in the experiments and how the conclusions were reached. It is quite comprehensive. For example

The Moral Life of Babies
There are two discoveries that I discuss in Just Babies that influence how I think about adult moral reasoning. The first is that there are hard-wired moral universals. To an important extent, all people have the same morality; the differences that we see—however important they are to our everyday lives—are variations on a theme. This universality provides some reason for optimism. It suggests that if we look hard enough, we can find common ground with any other neurologically normal human.

This can be backed up by other independent research that shows how all people, cultures have a similar core of morality

The second discovery is the importance of reason. Prominent writers and intellectuals like David Brooks, Malcolm Gladwell, and Jonathan Haidt have championed the view that, as David Hume famously put it, we are slaves of the passions. Our moral judgments and moral actions are driven mostly by gut feelings—rational thought has little to do with it. I find this a grim view of human nature, but if it were true, we should buck up and learn to live with it.

But I argue in Just Babies that it isn’t true. It is refuted by everyday experience, by history, and by the science of developmental psychology. It turns out instead that the right theory of our moral lives has two parts. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals. But we are more than just babies. A critical part of our morality—so much of what makes us human—emerges over the course of human history and individual development. It is the product of our compassion, our imagination, and our magnificent capacity for reason.
The Moral Life of Babies

The refutation by our everyday experience, by history and by the science of developmental psychology that we all know certain things are always right and wrong is my argument that is based on our lived moral experience.

 

[stevevw]

I know you'd like to think that, but that doesn't make it true. Look, I agree with you that people should be less sloppy with their word choice, but when someone tells you what they mean by what they've said, you can't tell them that they actually mean what you want them to. People still use "right" and "wrong" even when they're speaking subjectively. I find that grammatically irritating, but it doesn't mean they instinctively believe they're speaking objectively.

Yet acknowledging that they are sloppy with their wording is acknowledging that things can be taken the wrong way and that it is important to say what you mean and mean what you say. That is no justification especially when it comes to morality which demands a right or wrong answer in judging other people's behavior. Especially in that, there is a vast difference between an opinion and a fact when it comes to morality.

I disagree that people only mean their opinion when they say something is right or wrong. Think about the consequences of only stating an opinion when making a stand against a moral wrong. As far as I understand an opinion is not really committing to any stand against a wrong. Under subjective morality, the person is more or less saying " I think" it is wrong and cannot be taken seriously because they are really saying I could be wrong about my stand.

Like the argument that our lived experience shows we really support objective morality, I don't think people are projecting that uncertainty when they make a stand against wrongdoing. They are definite that it is wrong and the stand is not subject to an opinion. This is not me saying this but how ethicists also see it in the support I have posted. IE

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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

The greatest moral challenge of our time? It’s how we think about morality itself
Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken.
This is the way many of us tend to think and talk about many moral issues, not just murder. We refer to moral facts. And we prove our moral stance is the correct one by appealing to these facts.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself

Ya know, the kids these days like to say "cool" when they mean "awesome" but you wouldn't tell them that they're really talking about a temperature, would you? After all, temperatures are things we can measure objectively, so they must mean it objectively, right?

That is different to morality. Most people know what kids mean by cool. Applied to what I am talking about would be like a kid say his dad was good was just an opinion. No, the kid is really saying his dad is good as a fact. If it was just his opinion then that would be a slap in the fact for his dad as his dad could say "what do you mean its just your opinion, don't you really think I am a good dad.

It is not so much that I or someone else can tell what someone is thinking. It is the logical outcome of the person's own thinking if they are only meaning what they say as an opinion. Morality is about two positions, "right or wrong". When someone makes a stand they don't want to be sitting on the fence when they put a statement out into the world. It is either "right or wrong" and not maybe.

 

[Kylie]

As you can see I was using a 3rd person IE "what about if someone". I understand that you have your position but I was trying to clarify things.

I was asking you a hypothetical that if when someone makes a stand that an act is morally wrong, are not they taking a moral position to others, the world that what they are protesting about and saying is wrong, is actually wrong. Rather than "I think" it's wrong" which sort of undermines their position as they are not being sure about thinks and that they may be wrong.

I'd like to think that when people say that something is wrong and putting it out there they are making a "truth statement" and choosing to side with either "it's wrong or it's right". Not " I think it is but I'm not sure as its only my opinion.

The usual assumption is that ordinary people treat moral judgments as getting at something objective
Do People Actually Believe in Objective Moral Truths? « On the Human

Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken.
This is the way many of us tend to think and talk about many moral issues, not just murder. We refer to moral facts. And we prove our moral stance is the correct one by appealing to these facts.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself

Once again you don't seem to get what I am saying.

Someone can say, "It's wrong to smack a naughty child," and they aren't stating it as an objectively true fact, they are merely saying that they think it's wrong to smack a naughty child.

OK fair enough, Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You think oysters are disgusting but being an Aussie I love them.

I'm Aussie too.

I was born in Austria though, so perhaps that makes the difference.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why do most philosophers support that morals are objective?

Firstly, I’m not sure most do.

Secondly, try to answer the critique instead.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have read those authors if you talking about value nihilism. But like nihilism which takes the philosophical position that believes nothing and no purpose I cannot see how we could even debate morals. Hägerström basically didn’t believe in value judgments as he thought there was no scientific evidence to support values. But this does not take into consideration that values and morals are metaphysical propositions and can be supported through logical arguments and the indirect effects they have on people.

Science, ethicists, and philosophers use this form of evidence all the time and it is acceptable in other areas so why not moral values. If we didn’t then we would not be able to propose things like gravity, time and motion, dark matter, love, spirituality, consciousness, or any non-physical aspect of life that we all know is real because we live like it is real. I can see why you say that you don't support the metaphysical but that is contrary to most people. So why should I go along with a minority view which really hasn't any support?

The mind/body (consciousness) is one of the biggest mysteries to science and despite what you say we don't know where consciousness it is one of the most contested areas of science today. But then you are making an objective claim again about metaphysical things which you cannot have evidence for so perhaps you are coming from a biased position, to begin with. So it seems you do believe there is evidence for some metaphysical things but pick and choose when it's valid.

Consciousness is everything we experience, the individualness of experiences such as your taste for something, how people remember specific songs, experience the same things differently, experience pain, and love for our children. This is known as qualia and has been a mystery for 100s of years and we are still no closer to understand it.

In fact, it is what subjective morality is based on so many subjectivists would disagree with you. How could a 1.5kg piece of flesh produce such immaterial and varied experiences? It doesn't make sense if we are just moist robots running on chemical and electrical reactions.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness
The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious. It is the problem of explaining why there is “something it is like” for a subject in conscious experience, why conscious mental states “light up” and directly appear to the subject. The usual methods of science involve an explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness, therefore, presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain.
Hard Problem of Consciousness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Mind Body Debate
https://www.simplypsychology.org/mindbodydebate.html

As Thomas Nagel said
“To say that there is more to reality than physics can account for is not a piece of mysticism: it is an acknowledgment that we are nowhere near a theory of everything, and that science will have to expand to accommodate facts of a kind fundamentally different from those that physics is designed to explain.”
How does this dispute that time is still something that is not materially experienced but only measured by its results? And we don't fully know if our measurement of time is correct by the way. We know time through our current theory but that is only based on what we can experience in our part of the universe of space-time. Who says that there is an overarching reality that makes our understanding of time wrong. That seems to have some merit with quantum physics.

Value nihilism is the norm here.

Your religion seem to interfere with your reason (which btw is true in many things you post about, ex. the ToE).

 

[Moral Orel]

I disagree that people only mean their opinion when they say something is right or wrong.

Okay, but people have told you that's what they mean. So when you say that people know morality is objective even though they're saying it's subjective, you're calling them liars. When you say that everyone knows morality is objective, but I tell you it is just likes and dislikes, you're calling me a liar because you're claiming that I know what I am saying is false. You're a polite guy, I don't think that's your intention, but that is the logical conclusion from your statements.

That is different to morality. Most people know what kids mean by cool.

It's not different at all. "Right" and "wrong" have been the language of morality since I dunno when, so even if people are challenging the very nature of what morals have traditionally been thought to be, some don't see fit to change the language with it. I agree with you that people should be more clear in at least a semi-formal debate setting like this, but that doesn't change what they mean. After they've told you what they mean you need to accept that.

 

[Moral Orel]

Someone can say, "It's wrong to smack a naughty child," and they aren't stating it as an objectively true fact, they are merely saying that they think it's wrong to smack a naughty child.

See, that doesn't make the distinction clear for me either. What do you mean they "think it's wrong"? Like they're guessing? "I think Trump is going to win the election". Like that? (Just a note, I'm not a Trump fan, but I am a pessimist).

Or would it be okay to phrase it that they feel it's wrong? As in, they hate it and find it bad? "I think oysters are yucky". Like that?

 

[Moral Orel]

Value nihilism is the norm here.

What's the difference between value nihilism and moral subjectivity?

 

[VirOptimus]

What's the difference between value nihilism and moral subjectivity?

Its a bit complicated and there is overlap but moral subjectivity doesnt always deny the existance of values, just pose that they are subjective while value nihilism pose that values doesnt exist at all.

Most of the time the practical outcome in determining morals or ethics are the same.