But we are not talking about subjective morality. I am saying that you would have to come up with a defeater that our moral experience doesn't point to there being objective morals to the point that it doesn't just show that our moral experience is fallible or worthless but that it is completely unreliable, that we may recognize no objective moral values or duties whatsoever. Your defeater would have to be equivalent to showing that our reality is not what it is and that we are a brain in a jar being fed that the reality we experience.
I'm sorry, are you just assuming that morality is not subjective in order to show it is not subjective?
As mentioned before the measure is in the lived experience (how people act/react). How a person reacts to being wronged rather than the subjective moral view they claim. How society imposes certain morals on people and tells them they have to conform and that their subjective views don't matter.
And my lived experience is that Star Trek is better than Star Wars.
So I guess that means that Star Trek is OBJECTIVELY better than Star Wars, not matter what the Star Wars fans say.
And just because they think child abuse is OK are they objectively right. Should we not say there is something evil in them thinking that. Or just say that's OK for you to have that view and not declare it immoral. We can claim it is objectively wrong to think child abuse is good.
No, they are not objectively right. Because morality is not objective at all.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I am not saying there is no subjective morality. I am saying there is also objective morality and some of the morals people think are subjective and agree on are actually objective.
The point is just because a person has a view that child abuse is OK doesn't mean they are morally right. We have an inner voice telling us that it is wrong and the person claiming it is OK is actually morally wrong. They have no right to that opinion as it is evil. But if people really did support subjective morality they would say that the person claiming child abuse has every right to say that and live by that view.
And the fact is that what you say is what happens - there are plenty of people who DO live their lives believing it is okay to abuse children. But their opinion that it is okay is just that - an opinion. Just like how my opinion that it is wrong is also an opinion. Like I've been saying so many times I've lost count - morality is subjective! But you'd better believe that if I saw someone abusing a child I'd do whatever I could to stop it. Because my morality - as subjective as it is - demands that I step in to help people who are being abused.
First, we have to agree that child abuse is objectively morally wrong. Any compromise to this based on a justified moral reason doesn't change the fact that child abuse is objectively morally wrong. A relative situation doesn't change the objective moral. It just changes the situation relative to the circumstances.
Are you for real?
You are asking me to agree that abusing children is objectively morally wrong when my entire argument is that it is subjectively morally wrong?
Do you even know what those words even mean? Because you sure don't act like you do.
For example, a child who needs to have a medical procedure that may inflict pain or harm to them. Without the procedure, the child may suffer more or even die. It is a parent's moral duty to ensure their child is well looked after. These is two moral objectives come into conflict for which we have to accommodate both. Objective morality doesn't mean it cannot accommodate relative situations. This is different from a person's subjective perception of things that comes from the person.
Okay, here's a situation for you.
You find a crashed car. Inside is a trapped person. You need to free them or they will be killed when the car explodes in just a few minutes. You can free them, but it will mean that their hand is hopelessly broken. They beg you not to damage their hand - they are a musician and being able to play music is the only thing that gives them a reason to continue living. If their hand is broken they can't play, and they will sink into depression and want to die. They tell you that they would rather die than live without being able to play.
What is the objectively moral thing to do here? Do you save them and condemn them to a life of unending misery?
There are plenty of threads I am involved in for the discussion of evolution. Please feel free to tag me in one of them with any questions you have. But let's not derail this thread, okay?
So you're saying there are people who would not react to their child being sexually abused as being wrong and would think it is good.
Yes. There are some people out there who think it's perfectly acceptable to abuse children. There are even people out there who abuse their own children. There are people out there who allow their children to be abused by others.
Yes, not only that but your view would be just as valid and right as the person saying it is not OK to abuse children with justification.
I'm not saying I think their moral ideas are right, but such a person would be as sure their morality was right as I think mine is right. The difference is most people agree with my morality on this particular issue. My moral position on other issues would probably not have such widespread agreement, such as issues of gay marriage, pre-marital sex, open relationships, etc.
You can present your subjective moral view as your opinion only. What I am saying is that people act and react like morals are objective. They don't just present morals as their view but insist that their view is right for others. That is how people and society live (lived experience).
Yes, people act like their morals are objective, but as I have said countless times already, people believing that their morals are objective does not mean they ARE objective.
I did before. Say the objective moral is it is wrong to go into someone's house and eat from a pantry. The relative situation is that for the homeowner it is OK to enter their house and eat from the pantry. But it is wrong for a stranger to do that at my house. So things change according to the relative situation but it doesn't change the fact that it is objectively wrong to go into someone's house and eat from a pantry.
This doesn't actually answer my question. I'm asking for an example of such relativity in regards to something objective that is NOT morality.
The reason that I am asking is because I think you're making up this idea to get around the fact that you can't show morals are objective, so you add in this relative notion to explain the subjective nature of them without admitting they are subjective.
How can it be subjective when it only allows a rare exception which is also a moral objective. I thought subjective morality allowed all views. This example denies may view except a rare one. That surely cannot be classed as subjective. You are getting the relative situation mixed up with subjectiveness.
How can it be subjective when most people agree with it? It's not a popularity contest! Even if every person on the planet said Star Trek is better than Star Wars, it would still be a subjective opinion.
Howard the Duck is regarded as one of the worst movies ever made. Most people who have seen it think it's terrible. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still just a subjective opinion. Subjective opinions do not become objective just because they are widespread.
