Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

No, that's Moral Nihilism. What it is, I think, is that in your eagerness to grasp on to moral objectivity as a proof for God you have trapped yourself in a false dichotomy where morals are either objective or nothing but the product of individual ratiocination. But there is quite a bit more to subjective morality than that which you have blinded yourself to and it makes your arguments suck.

Then why do others on this forum on your side agree with what I have said in that someone with a subjective position expresses their moral position incorrectly like morality is objective?

But I am not saying that anyone with a subjective moral position is a moral Nihilist anyway. I am saying they should be a moral Nihilist if subjective morality is the only moral position available and there is no independent way to measure moral values. They are claiming that something is objectively wrong while arguing that there is no objective right and wrong. I don’t think there are many if not any true moral Nihilists. In fact, I have clearly said that people with subjective moral positions have their own opinion on morals and they act like there are objective moral values and duties. So, there is no way I am saying anyone is a moral Nihilist.

But here’s the thing many experts say that a subjective moral position is taking a moral Nihilist position because if there is no independent grounding of moral values so how does anyone account for there being any moral values at all.

You say it is by using reasoning, wellbeing, or empathy but as I have shown they all dependent on human subjectivity and are more about personal "likes and dislikes", preferences and feelings, and cannot really be equated to moral right and wrong. So in that sense, subjective morality is the same thing as saying there are no moral values.

Who knows? Maybe you are right about objective morality. As I mentioned before, I regard moral objectivity as an unfalsifiable proposition, so I can't say not. But the way you thrash around you is not getting any closer to proving it.

I don't believe prove objective morality is an unfalsifiable proposition. It is the proposition that if there is no objective morality then there are no moral truths that are part of the support. It is the fact that people act like there are moral truths that is part of the support. So saying that this is trash is denying the support for objective morality. This is a commonly use proposition in debates and most people opposing this have no answer for it so it is not just my argument.

 

[VirOptimus]

What difference does "not" make. I just added the "not" to make my post clearer as you said it was "word salad". It is still the same thing I am asking you regardless of how it is written. Its a simple question I'm asking

Without any independent measure to determine what you are saying is true how does the other person you are arguing with know that you are correct in what you say.

It matters because if you don't have any inde[pendent measure to show what you are saying is true then you could be making things up and no one could tell.

I simply dont get your point, you write incredibly vague and incoherent posts.

Morals cant be proven, they can just be argued. "Correct" is a value term regarding morals and can never be proven.

 

[stevevw]

Person A is literally saying, "I think you did the right thing."

No your changing it now. Your clearly said person "A" said, "You are right," and "You did the right thing.". That is not an opinion anymore its a statement of fact. See people don't even realize they are taking an objective position when they tell someone they are right or wrong. It is a truth statement.

You seem determined to interpret things the way you want based on what you want the results to be, which is why, perhaps, you resort to quibbling over words, just as you are doing here. You are letting your biases control you and it's impossible to have a rational conversation with you.

No I am not quibbling over words. I am using your words. You said person A said to the other person
"You are right," and then later you clarified that as them saying "You did the right thing." Can we at least agree on that?

I actually think it is you who are trying to expand what has been said and give it a meaning you want it to be so that it diminishes what has actually been stated. If someone says to another person that they did the right action or did the right thing doesn't that mean there was a wrong thing to do? Isn't that taking the side of it being right rather than wrong?

So if person B disagreed with the action being right aren't you saying that person B is wrong and person A is right. I think that's about as straight forward and simple as it is. You want to pretend that there is no implications from person A's statement that it was the right thing to do. Where ever there is a right there is also a wrong. That is why I am saying subjective morality is impossible to live out in real life.

 

[stevevw]

I simply don't get your point, you write incredibly vague and incoherent posts.

Maybe that's because you don't believe that anything is correct or incorrect. It was a simple question about how you determine what is correct.

Morals cant be proven, they can just be argued.

But arguments have a premise and a conclusion that needs to be logically supported and proven as correct or incorrect.

"Correct" is a value term regarding morals and can never be proven.

OK because it is about morality correct is probably the wrong word. So therefore
Without any independent measure to determine what you are saying is true about what is the proper way to treat others how does the other person you are arguing with know that you are right in what you say.

Surely if you are arguing then you are trying to convince someone about what is the right thing to do. Otherwise, why argue why try and convince someone about anything. Oh, that's right your a value Nihilist. [/QUOTE]

 

[Speedwell]

Then why do others on this forum on your side agree with what I have said in that someone with a subjective position expresses their moral position incorrectly like morality is objective?

You're the one who claims it's "incorrect."

But I am not saying that anyone with a subjective moral position is a moral Nihilist anyway. I am saying they should be a moral Nihilist if subjective morality is the only moral position available and there is no independent way to measure moral values. They are claiming that something is objectively wrong while arguing that there is no objective right and wrong. I don’t think there are many if not any true moral Nihilists. In fact, I have clearly said that people with subjective moral positions have their own opinion on morals and they act like there are objective moral values and duties. So, there is no way I am saying anyone is a moral Nihilist.

What do you think the concurrent discussion between two moral subjectivists, Ken and Orel, is about?

But here’s the thing many experts say that a subjective moral position is taking a moral Nihilist position because if there is no independent grounding of moral values so how does anyone account for there being any moral values at all.

We've tried to explain that to you on several occasions.

You say it is by using reasoning, wellbeing, or empathy but as I have shown they all dependent on human subjectivity and are more about personal "likes and dislikes", preferences and feelings, and cannot really be equated to moral right and wrong. So in that sense, subjective morality is the same thing as saying there are no moral values.

"If morals are not objective they do not exist. Morals exist. Therefore morals are objective. QED." Did you get dizzy working out that logic?

I don't believe prove objective morality is an unfalsifiable proposition.

Do you know what and unfalsifiable proposition is? It's one that cannot be disproven no matter what the evidence. It is not necessarily true, but it can't be shown to be false.

 

[Ken-1122]

Bologna. Now you're just being dishonest, it makes you look desperate. But okay, I'll need to demonstrate you're fibbing, so here we go:

You quoted these two bits:



And replied:


So no, it doesn't "only apply to someone close to you like a brother".

And just to be crystal clear, I summed it all up and asked again this:



Which you didn't respond to in your next post, so I asked you to return to it here:

And you replied with this:



So don't try to feed me some bull-honkey like I didn't accurately convey what you said. You probably thought that because you stretched your wishy-washy replies, where your position changed over the course of it, your mistakes would get lost, but this is why I enjoy debating on a digital format that preserves our responses. No fibbing. You lost bro. You've got nothing. You're literally trying to justify your beliefs with nothing. You should have one and only post in this thread that says, "I disagree with objective morality. I dunno, that's just how I feel. No reason."

The reason I agreed I care a little bit was because I didn’t have a clear understanding what I was agreeing to. Originally you asked if I feel bad when a stranger feels bad and I said not even a little bit. Many posts later when I agreed I feel a little towards strangers, I thought you were asking if I actually cared not if I felt bad. It was my mistake for not having a clear understanding as to what I was responding to so let me be clear right now. If I don’t know the person, though I may care a little about their fortunes, I don’t care enough to feel bad if they only feel bad. I apologize if my misunderstanding gave you false hope or the absurd impression that any of your claims actually have merit. My bad!

Logic 101 bro, try it some time. I mean, you're defending the act of believing without evidence, what use is there in providing evidence and explaining reason to you if you're just going to believe whatever you feel like?

Logic 101 tells me if there were an ounce of merit to your claims, you would have provided an outside source to back them up; the fact that you do not tells me you cannot thus as far as I am concerned your argument fails. Again; evidence is not necessary to believe something, often a reasonable assumption is all you need.

Which you hold without evidence, which is unreasonable.

I decide what I find reasonable; not you.

 

[Moral Orel]

The reason I agreed I care a little bit was because I didn’t have a clear understanding what I was agreeing to. Originally you asked if I feel bad when a stranger feels bad and I said not even a little bit. Many posts later when I agreed I feel a little towards strangers, I thought you were asking if I actually cared not if I felt bad. It was my mistake for not having a clear understanding as to what I was responding to so let me be clear right now. If I don’t know the person, though I may care a little about their fortunes, I don’t care enough to feel bad if they only feel bad. I apologize if my misunderstanding gave you false hope or the absurd impression that any of your claims actually have merit. My bad!

Nope. What you agreed to repeatedly was crystal clear. This isn't the first time you've tried to backpedal after you realized you lost.

Logic 101 tells me if there were an ounce of merit to your claims, you would have provided an outside source to back them up; the fact that you do not tells me you cannot thus as far as I am concerned your argument fails. Again; evidence is not necessary to believe something, often a reasonable assumption is all you need.

You say "evidence is not necessary to believe something" after telling me I should provide evidence... And of course, you fail to see how ridiculous that is. "Reasonable assumption" is a contradiction in terms. If you've assumed something, then you haven't used reason to arrive at that belief. I mean... Gah! What are you doing in the debate section?!

I decide what I find reasonable; not you.

See, that's the thing about something being "reasonable". The use of reason is not a subjective endeavor. So while you get to decide what you think is reasonable, that doesn't mean that you are in fact reasonable.

 

[Ken-1122]

You say "evidence is not necessary to believe something" after telling me I should provide evidence... And of course, you fail to see how ridiculous that is.

Evidence is not necessary for everything you do in life. However if you are trying to convince me of something, depending on what it is evidence may be necessary. How are you unaware of this?

"Reasonable assumption" is a contradiction in terms. If you've assumed something, then you haven't used reason to arrive at that belief. I mean... Gah! What are you doing in the debate section?!

Did someone teach you that or are you just making stuff up as you go along? More baseless claims. As far as what I'm doing in the debate section; pointing out more obvious flaws in your (il)logic.

See, that's the thing about something being "reasonable". The use of reason is not a subjective endeavor. So while you get to decide what you think is reasonable, that doesn't mean that you are in fact reasonable.

More baseless claims. Seems that is starting to become a thing with you. Again; I decide what I find reasonable not you.

 

[Kylie]

No your changing it now. Your clearly said person "A" said, "You are right," and "You did the right thing.". That is not an opinion anymore its a statement of fact. See people don't even realize they are taking an objective position when they tell someone they are right or wrong. It is a truth statement.

No I am not quibbling over words. I am using your words. You said person A said to the other person
"You are right," and then later you clarified that as them saying "You did the right thing." Can we at least agree on that?

I actually think it is you who are trying to expand what has been said and give it a meaning you want it to be so that it diminishes what has actually been stated. If someone says to another person that they did the right action or did the right thing doesn't that mean there was a wrong thing to do? Isn't that taking the side of it being right rather than wrong?

So if person B disagreed with the action being right aren't you saying that person B is wrong and person A is right. I think that's about as straight forward and simple as it is. You want to pretend that there is no implications from person A's statement that it was the right thing to do. Where ever there is a right there is also a wrong. That is why I am saying subjective morality is impossible to live out in real life.

Once again you resort to quibbling over wordplay.

Several years ago, I was filmed as part of a musical group (I play piano). If I told you that I had been on TV playing piano, would you criticise me for saying it, telling me that it is ludicrous that I could perch both myself and a piano on a TV and then play said piano? Or would you understand that I meant that I appeared in a broadcast which was aired on a television network that was displayed on a television screen?

 

[Moral Orel]

Evidence is not necessary for everything you do in life. However if you are trying to convince me of something, depending on what it is evidence may be necessary. How are you unaware of this?

You're demanding evidence that you should have evidence to back up your beliefs. I don't care if you realize that evidence is necessary to justify belief, it just discredits all of your claims that you think it doesn't. You're demonstrating that you'll believe what you like to believe, and that there's no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt that you've reasoned your way to your position.

Did someone teach you that or are you just making stuff up as you go along? More baseless claims. As far as what I'm doing in the debate section; pointing out more obvious flaws in your (il)logic.

That I haven't bothered to hold your hand through more basic word definitions does not make my claim "baseless". Your claim that you don't believe you need a shred of evidence for is "baseless". I simply haven't wasted my time proving a statement that would be trivial to do. You can't show evidence for yours.

More baseless claims. Seems that is starting to become a thing with you. Again; I decide what I find reasonable not you.

You decide what you think is reasonable, but you are incorrect. Reason deals in facts and objectivity. Learn what reason is.

 

[the iconoclast]

I say the actions are wrong due to the fact that they go against my moral standards

You say I'm wrong due to your own standard.

Let's reverse it. You are now the one that beat me, stole my property and gave it to someone else.

I say you have committed a sin and will be judged by God.

What now? Is my standard something you should acknowledge?

I would judge your actions wrong due to the fact that they go against my moral standards

You seem to ignore the core of that particular part of discussion. I will repeat the question.

1. I beat you up for no reason, I could and at that moment I felt like it.

2. I stole your shoes because I wanted to emasculate you.

3. I had no use for your shoes and gave them to the first person I saw without.

Am I immoral? How would you apply subjective morality here?

True

Excellent.

I would disagree due to your actions goes against my moral standards

In this scenario I believe evil and good are social constructs. You believe good and evil can be labelled.

Why should I acknowledge your moral standards?

Of course! That’s why we have objective laws! I would use the law to provide justice

Do you agree with the concept of objective morality or absolute morality?

I would have no choice but to hold you to the legal standards of society (objective laws); just as you would.

Fair enough.

The legal system

Why is the legal system an authority?

Officers of the law and the legal system will judge you

Punishment. Do you believe that if someone commits a 'wrong' action they should be judged and punished?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Is your desire to help disadvantaged people morally wrong? No. Is your assault on Ken wrong? Yes. At least that's my subjective opinion. Someone who doesn't like Ken and hates homeless people may have the exact opposite opinion.

Hey hey Kylie my dear

There were 3 new conditions that I added to that scenario - should have read that post i recommended.

Anyways. I beat up poor ken because I felt like it and could. I stole his shoes to emasculate him and then gave his shoes to the first person I saw without any.

Am I immoral and if I am, why should I care about being immoral?

How do I judge your actions? By how I would feel if you had done those things to me.

So we have 3 people in this equation.
A. @Ken-1122 - the victim
B. Me - the perpetrator
C. @Kylie - the critic (.e.g. someone who is asked for an opinion)

1. Kenny says I'm wrong and suggest he will use an objective force to compel me.

2. You suggest I'm wrong and will use a standard from the mouth of our Lord.

3. I believe good and evil are moral constructs. I do not believe I have acted immoral.

Why should I be bound by kenny's standard and how can I be bound by yours?

Who are you accountable to? The people whose lives you influenced, namely Ken and the homeless guy.

What accountability would that be?

Cheers big ears

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey brother @Speedwell

God bless you saint.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey @VirOptimus

 

[VirOptimus]

Hey @VirOptimus

I have told you before to stop pestering me, I am not interested in talking to you.

 

[Kylie]

So we have 3 people in this equation.
A. @Ken-1122 - the victim
B. Me - the perpetrator
C. @Kylie - the critic (.e.g. someone who is asked for an opinion)

1. Kenny says I'm wrong and suggest he will use an objective force to compel me.

2. You suggest I'm wrong and will use a standard from the mouth of our Lord.

3. I believe good and evil are moral constructs. I do not believe I have acted immoral.

Why should I be bound by kenny's standard and how can I be bound by yours?

Ken's the one you injured.

What accountability would that be?

You tell me, you're the one who started talking about accountability.

Cheers big ears

What did you call me?

 

[stevevw]

You're the one who claims it's "incorrect."

I'm not the only one. This is a common understanding by most philosophers and ethicists. IE

THE HYPOCRISY OF MORAL RELATIVISM
Here are some things that, as a relativist, it makes no sense to do:
* Criticize other cultures or cultural values. This includes things like cannibalism, Nazism, or slavery.
* Criticize any human choice. It’s possible to criticize the efficiency of something (if your goal was to get an A then you ought to have studied) but it would be senseless to oppose people’s preferences or desires (even someone like Ted Bundy)

And yet, in practice, we observe all of those things happening. We do have the intuitive sense that some values are wrong, and some values are right, we do have the intuitive sense that some choices are wrong, and some are right, and this is best seen in our own actions.

We do argue, bitterly, about questions of right and wrong and we think that problems such as abortion aren’t just matters of opinion but actually matter. Our actual observations don’t match up to what we would expect given relativism; they line up much better with what we’d expect to observe given an objective morality that isn’t always clear.
The Hypocrisy of Moral Relativism

Relativism Refutes Itself
Ask the person do they really believe there are no objective truths. If they really do believe that objective truths are objectively untrue then this is self-refuting. That sort of blanket relativism is indefensible, it refutes itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jguXSBk-tAI

Moral values are assigned individuals who often contradict each other.
Moral values would have to be assigned by people. But then, which people? Also, would morality be determined by popular vote? Or, do individuals claim moral values for themselves and then seek to blend into the moral values of everyone else? But the problem is that people contradict each other and all sorts of things. It would be a problem to determine what is actually is right and wrong when morals are subjective, and people disagree all the time. Furthermore, if people were to appeal to something "just being wrong," then they are not appealing to the subjective preferences but to a standard outside of themselves. This would be inconsistent with the idea of subjective morality
What is wrong with subjective morality? | CARM.org

What do you think the concurrent discussion between two moral subjectivists, Ken and Orel, is about?

I am not 100% sure but I have debated with both and from what I gather it is about trying to define morality or better still give it some meaning. I know a big part of this was equating moral right and wrong with "likes and dislikes" IE I like it when I feel good so I will treat others well. Also caring/empathy IE I care and empathize about others like I would like to be treated so I will treat others that way. But Ken does not agree with this or perhaps has a different view on it.

What I see is that there is a bit of borrowing from objective positions to try and make meaning our of right and wrong without acknowledging this. But I don't think people can make meaning of right and wrong without there being an independent measure beyond humans whether that be for empathy, preferences, "likes or dislikes" It seems to be going on for some pages now. Perhaps the issue is there is no independent measure for them both to use to determine what is right and wrong. One is trying to convince another about something that is a personal view.

We've tried to explain that to you on several occasions.

Yes, and I have explained how that cannot account for moral right and wrong. Empathy (Feelings), Caring (feelings), wellbeing (still subjective), "Likes and dislikes" do not equate to right and wrong morally. You have to come up with something more than this. The articles linked at the beginning of this post explain this. Here is a more detailed one. You don't have to read it all but just read under
Moral Subjectivism on an Individual Level
As long as the moral subjectivist admits to the primacy of autonomy whilst denying that all are equally worthless, the moral subjectivist turns out to be just another moral realist.
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=sol_research

"If morals are not objective they do not exist. Morals exist. Therefore morals are objective. QED." Did you get dizzy working out that logic?
Do you know what and unfalsifiable proposition is? It's one that cannot be disproven no matter what the evidence. It is not necessarily true, but it can't be shown to be false.

That is not what I said though. I was talking about how people claim a subjective moral position but act/react like there are objective morals. It is the fact that they act like objective morals exist and that a subjective moral position is meaningless when it comes to the truth of moral right and wrong which supports objective moral truths.

So a necessarily true proposition can be made. When someone says that a person is morally wrong when committing an act such as rape they are making a "truth" statement. Therefore it is necessarily true that there has to be a truthful conclusion about that moral act that is either right or wrong. It cannot be both right and wrong and nor can it be neither right or wrong.

If you say that the proposition is false then it necessarily follows that the proposition is neither right nor wrong and therefore rape is neither right nor wrong. This then follows that rape is not a moral issue. But in doing this the moral skeptic is also acknowledging that all actions have no right and wrong and all moral acts are not moral issues. Therefore that position is meaningless when it comes to morality.

Considering that an argument can also be made that a "truth" statement about an act that is right or wrong cannot come from an individual as they can only express person views that would mean that the truth of whether that moral act was right or wrong has to be independent of people. Therefore a moral truth has to be independent of people.

My original argument that objective morality exists was based on a proposition that we can be justified to believe objective moral values and duties exist based on our lived moral experience just as we are justified to believe the physical world around us exists based on our lived experience through our senses and it is not some virtual reality.

Until we have a defeater of that lived moral experience which would have to show that our experience of objective morality is totally unreliable and we could not realize them at all. Just like a defeater would show that our physical world is not real and unreliable such as we could be living in some virtual reality we are justified to believe that what we experience is a real representation of what it.

That is why I focused on individual moral acts in saying when people condemn and protest a wrong they are making a "truth" statement and it is not just their personal views. We intuitively act like there are objective morality. When we see a child getting attacked or old women being robbed we don't just walk by and accept that this is the attacker's subjective view and that's OK. We know it is wrong regardless of subjective views.

 

[stevevw]

Once again you resort to quibbling over wordplay.

Several years ago, I was filmed as part of a musical group (I play piano). If I told you that I had been on TV playing piano, would you criticise me for saying it, telling me that it is ludicrous that I could perch both myself and a piano on a TV and then play said piano? Or would you understand that I meant that I appeared in a broadcast which was aired on a television network that was displayed on a television screen?

OK, I am only questioning things as it is an important distinction for what we are talking about which is subjective morality (personal opinions) and objective morality (moral truths). So can you see why I would make something of this and how important that small distinction is? But if you say that is not what you meant then I accept that.

But if someone did say to the person committing that act of hitting "You are right" or "you did the right thing" the person is making a "truth" statement and not a personal opinion. By adding the "I think" into the statement that completely changes it. IE "in my opinion, I think". Do you agree or disagree?

Nevertheless, the need for you to want to avoid being labeled with that difference only shows what I am saying is correct. That the tiny difference can change things where people are pushing an opinion rather than expressing one. They are making a "truth" statement about what is right and wrong.

In fact, I did a little research on this matter to support what I am saying and found as I said earlier that not only are people saying others are wrong in their actions but they are actually looking for people to shame and clearly naming them and the wrongs, condemning them and then threatening them to the point that they destroy them.

This seems to be a modern movement and it is full of rage and hate. At the same time, we are seeing virtue-signalling where celebs and individuals in order to show everyone their good moral virtues are now calling out the bad behaviour of individuals, politicians and their parties, organisations and even other countries.

So people are clearly not just saying it is my personal opinion that this and that is wrong. They are being judgemental and forcing their morality onto others while declaring how great their morality is at the same time and how everyone should do what they do.

Why Are We So Hateful & Judgemental About The Opinion Of Others On Social Media?
Today, having a different opinion is a crime. A crime than invites hate, abuse and insult.
As a generation, we've become so mean, so judgmental, and intolerant, we're unable to accept anything that doesn't find consent with our point of view.
****-shaming, body-shaming, name-calling, etc, are rampant on Twitterverse!
Why Are We So Hateful & Judgemental About The Opinion Of Others On Social Media?

The Impact of Public Shaming in a Digital World
“I think a lot of people resort to public shaming out of anger and frustration, the desire to call out bad behavior, and the need to feel validated for their emotions,”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/...07/the-impact-public-shaming-in-digital-world

Online shaming
Those being shamed are perceived to have committed a social transgression, other internet users then use public exposure to shame the offender. People have been shamed online for a variety of reasons, usually some form of social transgression
Online shaming - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not the only one. This is a common understanding by most philosophers and ethicists. IE

THE HYPOCRISY OF MORAL RELATIVISM
Here are some things that, as a relativist, it makes no sense to do:
* Criticize other cultures or cultural values. This includes things like cannibalism, Nazism, or slavery.
* Criticize any human choice. It’s possible to criticize the efficiency of something (if your goal was to get an A then you ought to have studied) but it would be senseless to oppose people’s preferences or desires (even someone like Ted Bundy)

And yet, in practice, we observe all of those things happening. We do have the intuitive sense that some values are wrong, and some values are right, we do have the intuitive sense that some choices are wrong, and some are right, and this is best seen in our own actions.

We do argue, bitterly, about questions of right and wrong and we think that problems such as abortion aren’t just matters of opinion but actually matter. Our actual observations don’t match up to what we would expect given relativism; they line up much better with what we’d expect to observe given an objective morality that isn’t always clear.
The Hypocrisy of Moral Relativism

Relativism Refutes Itself
Ask the person do they really believe there are no objective truths. If they really do believe that objective truths are objectively untrue then this is self-refuting. That sort of blanket relativism is indefensible, it refutes itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jguXSBk-tAI

Moral values are assigned individuals who often contradict each other.
Moral values would have to be assigned by people. But then, which people? Also, would morality be determined by popular vote? Or, do individuals claim moral values for themselves and then seek to blend into the moral values of everyone else? But the problem is that people contradict each other and all sorts of things. It would be a problem to determine what is actually is right and wrong when morals are subjective, and people disagree all the time. Furthermore, if people were to appeal to something "just being wrong," then they are not appealing to the subjective preferences but to a standard outside of themselves. This would be inconsistent with the idea of subjective morality
What is wrong with subjective morality? | CARM.org

You look pretty silly making a claim like that about "most philosophers and ethicists" and then posting nothing but radical Calvinist apologetic to back it up.

Moral Subjectivism on an Individual Level
As long as the moral subjectivist admits to the primacy of autonomy whilst denying that all are equally worthless, the moral subjectivist turns out to be just another moral realist.

https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=sol_research

I can see why you like this guy; he argues just like you do, by telling his opponents what their position must be.

That is why I focused on individual moral acts in saying when people condemn and protest a wrong they are making a "truth" statement and it is not just their personal views. We intuitively act like there are objective morality. When we see a child getting attacked or old women being robbed we don't just walk by and accept that this is the attacker's subjective view and that's OK. We know it is wrong regardless of subjective views.

That's because our moral sense is not solely the result of individual conscious thought. It's not something each person figures out for himself each time he confronts a moral dilemma.

 

[Ken-1122]

You say I'm wrong due to your own standard.

Let's reverse it. You are now the one that beat me, stole my property and gave it to someone else.

I say you have committed a sin and will be judged by God.

What now? Is my standard something you should acknowledge?

If I had done that to you, I have gone against my own standards. It just so happens your God’s standards mirror my own

You seem to ignore the core of that particular part of discussion. I will repeat the question.

1. I beat you up for no reason, I could and at that moment I felt like it.

2. I stole your shoes because I wanted to emasculate you.

3. I had no use for your shoes and gave them to the first person I saw without.

Am I immoral? How would you apply subjective morality here?

Nothing’s changed. What do you think I am ignoring?

In this scenario I believe evil and good are social constructs. You believe good and evil can be labelled.

Why should I acknowledge your moral standards?

BTW I believe evil and good are social constructs as well. If I make an argument you find compelling for my moral standards, you should accept them. If I do not; you have no reason to accept my moral standard.

Do you agree with the concept of objective morality or absolute morality?

How are you defining those terms?

Why is the legal system an authority?

Society has made it an authority.

Punishment. Do you believe that if someone commits a 'wrong' action they should be judged and punished?

I feel wrong actions should be made illegal, and people punished if they commit the action because it has been made illegal.