Before I start my reply, I'd just like to point out that you appear to have skipped replying to many of the points I have raised.
In particular, you avoided responding to the part of my post where I said you were incapable of using your idea of objective morality to tell us what the objectively right moral choice is in a particular situation. All you ever seem to say is that certain things are objectively morally wrong. So please tell me what the objectively morally right course of action is if I find that my daughter has taken $20 out of my purse so she can go and get McDonalds with her friends.
As pointed out in the last post you are confusing objective/subjective morality with absolute and relativity. Please refer to the article I linked.
You mean the one that assumes there is an absolute morality in order to show the existence of God?
Yes, the Nation is not saying they are fine with killing criminals like it is a good act. They are saying it is still wrong but justified according to the relative situation. Even the US states that killing is always wrong but certain situations that kill a person like self-defense or manslaughter are still wrong but not as bad as 1st-degree murder. They never say it is ok or good to murder as they still give a less penalty for killing in self-defense or manslaughter.
How can there be ANY justification to do something that is objectively and absolutely wrong?
So the same logic would be I cannot show evidence to support evolution with one example of a species evolving. I have to show examples of all species from micro-organisms to large land animals to support evolution. That's a logical fallacy.
No. It would be like you claiming that the evolution of computers is not what is described as biological evolution, therefore there is no such thing as biological evolution.
But your personal view about empathy does not tell us how we should value empathy objectively. It only applies to you so therefore you cannot impose how you value empathy on others as they may have a different value for it. Yet people are always imposing their morals onto others. (We seem to be going over the same things).
I agree.
I cannot impose my subjective morality based on my own empathy on others. BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECTIVE. Why do you keep looking for some objective morality when I've already told you countless times that there isn't one?
Because you are fallible and subject to all sorts of influences that can skew and taint your opinion of empathy. So, therefore, you need an independent measure beyond the person. For example, similar to a scoring system independent of personal views. For example, there is a scoring system for bowling which records the number of pins knocked down and strikes. It is not up to personal views but an independent measuring system.
So? I've already freely admitted that my morality is entirely subjective. Your criticism of it seems to be, "Morally isn't subjective, because if it was subjective, then it would be subjective and not objective!"
But if there is no such thing as a straight line and there is only a crooked line how would you even know it was a crooked line. It would just be some weird shaped narrow thing. The same as empathy and apathy, justice and injustice, or good and evil. If morals are only subjective then there is no grounding for morals and therefore there is no way to tell their value. They would be similar to "likes or dislikes" of something. Therefore there would be no right and wrong morally.
How would I know that it is a crooked line?
Because I measure the angle.
Doesn't that tell you that under subjective morality there is no reliable measure for moral values like empathy because they are different for each person. This could range from no empathy to empathy being hurting people just like they hurt you. Who knows as there is no independent measure. Any attempt to claim you know what empathy really is is an illusion because if there is no independent reference for moral values then there is no value for morals.
GASP! It's almost like it was entirely subjective and not objective at all!
Isn't this what I've been trying to tell you?
I don't have to demonstrate this. I only have to show that there has to be some sort of external source be it God, Vishnu, some transient being, mother nature, or some superiorly good alien. I have already shown that there has to be some external reference point that grounds morals, therefore, making them objective.
Nah, all you've done is make the claim. You have to support your claim.
After all, what can be claimed with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.
But with no reference point or comparison that 180-degree line could actually be a crooked line. Just because it has no bends in it doesn't cause you to know it is straight. That's because you don't know what straight is in the first place. If you only have one form of something then how can you tell what it is or is not without the opposite to put in into context.
I know. But when the results come out to 180 degrees, I know it's straight. I don't even need to SEE the line. I just need to know that it's 180 degrees and I know for a fact that it's not crooked.
Yes that's what I have been trying to point out. If we don't have a reference point to compare then everything is just bits of information with no context. That is what C.S. Lewis's famous quote is all about. How could he complain about injustice in the universe is so bad if there was no justice to compare with and give injustice some context?
Line has angle of 180 degrees.
I don't need to know the context of anything else to know that this line being measured is straight. What possible context could there be that would change the fact that it is straight?
If there were no short people to put into context tall people we would just think tall was how humans came. There would be no such value or measurement as tall. Injustice and other moral values would just be unidentifiable feelings of some sort and any idea of them being some form or good or bad, right or wrong would be meaningless.
But "tall" and "short" are subjective terms.
I am of average height. My daughter (back when she was six) was a lot shorter than me. But we were both tall compared to the cockroaches that we occasionally found in the house.
You can't prove an objective by invoking subjectives.