Probably has something to do with some moral statements actually being objective.  Those statements give cover to those that aren't.  Those statements which are personal, subjective, cultural, or religious.

Those objective moral statements have : drumroll: an objective basis which is not, and is not enhanced by the opinions of your pet god. This is what people are trying to express to you when you flit back and forth between the subjectivity of great fairy and the supposed subjectivity of any other moral agent.

(October 3, 2018 at 5:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 3, 2018 at 5:39 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And I'm saying that believers are *less* likely to have good morals. Their superstitions get in the way of morality.

Witness all the current debates about gays being given basic rights.

And you have no basis other than what... your own opinion for that?  

And you have what exactly .. a direct line to God?  Is that your opinion?

(October 3, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 3, 2018 at 5:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And you have no basis other than what... your own opinion for that?  

And you have what exactly .. a direct line to God?  Is that your opinion?

It’s not that it’s an opinion, but that there is nothing outside of youself to justify the veracity of that opinion ( under subjective morality). You are just telling me about the subject. It stops there. I was talking about the nature of saying that something is subjective. Not making a deragatory or snide remark.

(October 3, 2018 at 5:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 3, 2018 at 5:39 pm)polymath257 Wrote: And I'm saying that believers are *less* likely to have good morals. Their superstitions get in the way of morality.

Witness all the current debates about gays being given basic rights.

And you have no basis other than what... your own opinion for that?  If morality is subjectiv, then you don’t really have an argument or basis for comparison.

Also, I don’t see hardly anyone saying that same sex attracted people should be denied basic human rights. Which you also can’t really argue with subjective morality. As I said, that most people have an inane sense of objective morality, makes me believe it’s true. In fact it’s difficult not to behave as if morals are objective.

Once again, you aren't listening to what I say.

**The basis for ALL morality is compassion and a sense of fairness.**

When religion goes against that, it becomes immoral. When governments go against that, they become immoral. When societies go against that, they become immoral.

So, does denying gays marriage rights go against those basics? Yes. So it is immoral.

The standard for morality is compassion and fairness. That is subjective to some extent, but not nearly to the extent of trying to figure out what an unknowable deity wants.

@RR
-all of which is a poor objection on it's own merits, but also completely irrelevant to objective moral statements.

(October 3, 2018 at 6:28 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(October 3, 2018 at 5:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And you have no basis other than what... your own opinion for that?  If morality is subjectiv, then you don’t really have an argument or basis for comparison.

Also, I don’t see hardly anyone saying that same sex attracted people should be denied basic human rights. Which you also can’t really argue with subjective morality. As I said, that most people have an inane sense of objective morality, makes me believe it’s true. In fact it’s difficult not to behave as if morals are objective.

Once again, you aren't listening to what I say.

**The basis for ALL morality is compassion and a sense of fairness.**

When religion goes against that, it becomes immoral. When governments go against that, they become immoral. When societies go against that, they become immoral.

So, does denying gays marriage rights go against those basics? Yes. So it is immoral.

The standard for morality is compassion and fairness. That is subjective to some extent, but not nearly to the extent of trying to figure out what an unknowable deity wants.

Your equivocating on subjective and objective here.   And once again this isn't about knowing what is moral or immoral.  It's about the nature of morality.   Compassion and fairness are a part of morality.... I agree.  However you have no basis for saying that one ought to be compassionate and fair.   And according to what you have said, if the majority or evolution as your just so story states had made greed and the suffering of others more prevalent, then would you call that moral?  

Unfortunately, I'm going to be going on vacation over the weekend; so I'll be limited for a little while.   This is also why I'm not getting into some of the more off topic parts of the discussion.   I am still asking how you came to the conclusion that evolution was the basis for morality though.

How many threads are you going to pull this same routine in...will it ever stop, lol?

It's similar to saying, "I can walk without crutches."

(October 3, 2018 at 7:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 3, 2018 at 6:28 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Once again, you aren't listening to what I say.

**The basis for ALL morality is compassion and a sense of fairness.**

When religion goes against that, it becomes immoral. When governments go against that, they become immoral. When societies go against that, they become immoral.

So, does denying gays marriage rights go against those basics? Yes. So it is immoral.

The standard for morality is compassion and fairness. That is subjective to some extent, but not nearly to the extent of trying to figure out what an unknowable deity wants.

Your equivocating on subjective and objective here.   And once again this isn't about knowing what is moral or immoral.  It's about the nature of morality.   Compassion and fairness are a part of morality.... I agree.  However you have no basis for saying that one ought to be compassionate and fair.   And according to what you have said, if the majority or evolution as your just so story states had made greed and the suffering of others more prevalent, then would you call that moral?  

Unfortunately, I'm going to be going on vacation over the weekend; so I'll be limited for a little while.   This is also why I'm not getting into some of the more off topic parts of the discussion.   I am still asking how you came to the conclusion that evolution was the basis for morality though.

Consider compassion and fairness as being moral axioms. They are the basic assumptions for morality. Furthermore, they are basic assumptions that most people agree to.

Take it as moral *axioms* that one should be fair and compassionate. Those axioms are common sense and clear. Whether they are 'objective' or 'subjective' is beside the point. People agree to them (probably because of genetics and evolution) and so they are part of the *definition* or morality.

In a very different, non-social species, they may NOT be axioms for behavior or for a definition of morality. For us, they are.

I came to the conclusion that our moral sensitivities are *derived* from evolution because it seems to exist in other primates and because such compassion and fairness are clearly helpful for the survival of social species. What makes it a stable equilibrium is an interesting idea, but clearly it is.

Let me give a couple other examples that may clarify the issues.

When people look at clouds, we see faces. This is something that happens to pretty much everyone. It is almost certainly a genetic thing to see faces whenever possible, even when they aren't appropriate.

Are faces in clouds objective or subjective? Well, everyone sees faces in clouds. People can even agree that certain clouds look like certain types of faces. it is an objective fact that people see faces in clouds. But clouds do not, objectively, have faces. They are masses of water vapor and simply don't actually have faces.

As another example, people generally agree that certain pieces of art are beautiful. Every culture has art and different cultures can appreciate the art of other cultures. Does that make the beauty of art objective? Even if people agree that a certain piece is beautiful, does that make it *objectively* beautiful? Is artistic beauty an objective or a subjective thing?

In both cases, everyone experiences a phenomenon. The phenomenon of art is even valued by most people. But that *doesn't* make either faces in clouds or artistic beauty an objective thing. Both are subjective. But that doesn't make art,, for example, less important. If anything, it is its very subjectivity that makes it so important.

In the same way, almost everyone has a moral sense. Fairness and compassion are aspects of this common moral sense. But the fact that it is common to all does NOT mean it is objective. It just means we have common subjective experiences. Further, the subjectivity does NOT make it less important or valuable to us or our societies. If anything, it makes it more important.

But, just like faces in clouds or artistic beauty, there is NOTHING inherent in the real world that dictates the subjective experiences we have no matter how important or meaningful. These are not objective things, but are very much subjective things, although common to almost all people.

And, in the case of art, the richness of our lives is enhanced by this. And, for morality, the structures of our societies and our lives benefit from having the twin moral guides of fairness and compassion.