Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[LastPoet]

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

Are you saying you need a god to be good? I am assuming you as American, and I am Portuguese, would eating snails be as offensive as raping you? In other words would something i do that harms no one else equal to harming others? Is that what your god tells you?

[The Grand Nudger]

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

How it seems to you is a good example of something you take to be factual, which is non-factual.

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

Is it babies?

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

Even for a person who sees morality as a wholly subjective affair..they still have their own subjective morality and their subjective morality probably contains the moral judgement "rape is wrong, child molestation is wrong"

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

Well, again, are the eating babies?  People say that rape is wrong because that's an accurate representation of their moral judgement in the matter in question.

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

That;s not at all what a person who accepted a subjective morality would do.  Obviously, they;d tell you that rape is wrong, if their subjective morality said that rape was wrong?

Is that what you believe?

Me, personally?  No.  I think that morality can be objective, at least.. and that rape is wrong.  Most of the people you will find here also think that rape is wrong, even if they think that morality is subjective.  Let's use your woeful food analogy.

If I told you that I thought chocolate was better than vanilla....and you said "well, that's just like, your opinion..man" - I'd say.."yes, yes that -is- my opinion....."  The same is true of a person who holds a subjective morality.  A person who holds (or accepts that they hold) a ubjective morality can say to you..rape is wrong, and when you pull the lebowski on them..they'll look at you like you have a dick growing out of your forehead and say

"Yes, it -is- my opinion that rape is wrong"

They'll also wonder if, just maybe, you have a little girl in your basement.

[brewer]

Hi LH.

I notice that like to set up a scenario that supports your position but I don't think it came with much thought. Not to many people are concerned with the morals of eating, unless you run up against a militant vegan or PETA member. Try eating meat around them and see is your are not morally judged. How's your food analogy now?

As to the rape and murder scenarios, you've certainly picked a couple of extremes that (I believe) almost all people would say is morally wrong. But morals get applied to more than just rape and murder. Stealing, lying, cheating, gambling, killing (murders lesser cousin), war, stem cells, abortion, gambling, sex, .......... Would you like to tell us your moral positions on these issues when considered in a range of situations? 

If you are honest I believe that you will have to admit that when looking at gambling (an easy one to pick) the moral aspect is subjective (I say it exists on a sliding scale). So if I'm a total ass and gamble every day to excess to the harm of myself and my family or work most would say I am wrong. If I buy a lottery ticket once a week and harm no one am I wrong to the same extent? It's still gambling. Can you take a moral factual position?

So, are you honest (watch out, moral people are watching)?

[Little Henry]

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

You're overlooking some things.  Indeed with taste preferences nothing rides on it which directly affects me if you eat something I wouldn't.  There are no facts involved in what one should or shouldn't enjoy eating.  With conduct toward others what you do can very much affect others.  And there are facts regarding what you should or shouldn't do to others. But those facts aren't written by God, they are codified in laws enforced by men.  Morals are the sentiments which modify our actions; laws are the consensus of societal agreement of what will or will not be tolerated.  You might like to yell at Jeffrey Dahmer that he is a monster but I wouldn't.  I have no more expectation that anything useful would come of that than I have that my preferences in food will motivate your choices.  I don't have a reasonable expectation of finding common moral ground with Jeffrey Dahmer.  But I do have confidence that moral consensus which shapes the laws of the land will stop him and that is good enough for me.

Which men? ISIS? Hitler? Al Qada? North Korean president? Stalin? Trump? Pope?

If there is any objectivity to morality it comes through consensus, not through God.  And why wouldn't there be substantial moral agreement?  We are shaped as much by nurture as nature and we are highly social animals.  Long eons of living socially may even have instilled propensities for some values in our very nature.

Consensus has nothing to do with if something is a fact or not. At one stage it was the consensus that the earth was flat.

---

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

Is that what you believe?

What seems incoherent is your claim that it is unreasonable to expect agreement morally (my bolded) unless god.  God is uncertain, but substantial moral agreement is common place.  You can't know that god is required for that to be so.  Like me, you just know that it is so.  Your "how could it be otherwise?" won't win you any arguments here.

For something to be objective, it must be true or exist regardless of any human opinion. Such moral values and duties would have to have existed before any humans arrived on the scene.

---

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

Is that what you believe?

Where this falls down, of course, is that having food isn't the same as rape.  I find pizza - in all forms - to be revolting and anathema to decent people.  But when you or anyone else eats a pizza, you aren't harming anyone.  You can't seriously expect us to consider that gustutatory preferences are on the same moral level as the pain and suffering that accompany the rape of a child.

Ok, so you are admitting to objective morality? Ie, it is a FACT that you OUGHT not harm others?

You and your ilk also routinely make the mistake that 'objective morality' and 'universal morality' are the same thing.  That morality is subjective is a fact sustained by observation and the history of our species.  We no longer, for example, toss an unwanted or malformed infant on the local rubbish tip, but a Roman mum who did so would be behaving morally.  Morality varies from time to time and even from place to place in the current era.  If what you mean when you say 'objective morality' were the case, then the ancient Assyrians would have the same moral strictures in place as the modern Japanese, who would follow the same moral code Dutch Jews  in 1656 (look it up).

The fact that moral rules are clearly shaped by geography, religious traditions, and (to a surprisingly large extent) economics, the notion that there is some overarching standard of universal morality doesn't hold up.

Boru

So you saying we have improved morally? If so, this admits to objective morality.

---

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

No fictional invisible sky hero needed to gap fill to explain where our morals come from.

Now watch this video and you tell me how this cat figured out right from wrong and doesn't pray to a cat god. And please dont insult my intellect by trying to answer with "poof" or "miracle".

Animals act on instinct for its own survival or altruistic, not right/wrong.

We see in the wild where a group of ducks pack rape a female duck. Are they doing anything wrong? No they are not. if they are not doing anything wrong, then why is it wrong if me and my friends pack rape a girl?

Under naturalism/atheism, humans are just animals, animals with more complex nervous systems, but still just animals.

Why is it not wrong for ducks to pack rape, but wrong for humans to pack rape? where does this obligation come from that doesnt exist for any other animal, but it does for humans?

We also see apes kill each other for land. Is it wrong for apes to kill each other in the wild? No. 

Humans also kill each other for land, so why is it wrong for humans and not for other animals including apes?

You can say humans can reason, but that just presupposes moral facts do indeed exist, ie objective morality.

Empathy? Empathy does not make something right or wrong.

---

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

Is that what you believe?

No because my morality is built on my own empathy.
I can imagine what it would be like to be a brutailised girl and I think its horrible. I am nice to a certain value of nice so I would not want to inflict harm on others.
But do you know what you need to overcome morality in people who have empathy?
You need a strong enough idea, such as religion or nationalism.
With these you can make normal people monsters.

Empathy does not make something right or wrong. It may make it desirable or undesirable, but not right or wrong.
Consider a sociopath, he does not have any empathy, is it still wrong if he rapes a girl? Yes.

[RoadRunner79]

---

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

Is that what you believe?

Where this falls down, of course, is that having food isn't the same as rape.  I find pizza - in all forms - to be revolting and anathema to decent people.  But when you or anyone else eats a pizza, you aren't harming anyone.  You can't seriously expect us to consider that gustutatory preferences are on the same moral level as the pain and suffering that accompany the rape of a child.

---

You and your ilk also routinely make the mistake that 'objective morality' and 'universal morality' are the same thing.  That morality is subjective is a fact sustained by observation and the history of our species.  We no longer, for example, toss an unwanted or malformed infant on the local rubbish tip, but a Roman mum who did so would be behaving morally.  Morality varies from time to time and even from place to place in the current era.  If what you mean when you say 'objective morality' were the case, then the ancient Assyrians would have the same moral strictures in place as the modern Japanese, who would follow the same moral code Dutch Jews  in 1656 (look it up).

The fact that moral rules are clearly shaped by geography, religious traditions, and (to a surprisingly large extent) economics, the notion that there is some overarching standard of universal morality doesn't hold up.

Boru

I see this quite a bit in response to the discussion of objective morality.  I don't believe that it is a good argument for a morality that is subjective.  This argument (if correct) would also mean that science and our understanding of the universe is also subjective. Would you make the same comparison between the ancient Assyrians and the modern Japanese and come to the same conclusion in regards to their scientific beliefs?  This clearly not the case, because the universe doesn't change, based on the subject.  It is a difference between how or what we know, and what is the nature of the topic being discussed (epistemology vs ontology).  Knowledge by it's nature is necessarily subjective.  What you know, is not what I know (it is based on us as individuals). That which is objective however is independent of our knowledge of it. Normally from scholars what I see being discussed is the ontology of morality, not it's epistemology or even evolution.  In fact, when one compares the moral principles or practices of a person or culture, they are necessarily weighing it against a standard which is outside of that culture or subject.

I would disagree that equating objective with universal is a mistake (although I'm open to argument on this).  If it is objective, then by definition it is independent of the subject or universal among subjects.  This is regardless of their belief of the topic, and whether it is correct or wrong.  I would agree, that objective does not mean absolute.  The boiling point of water at a given altitude and pressure is objective and universal regardless of the person or even their mistake in measuring it.  However I specify the pressure, because the boiling point of water is not absolute, but relative pressure.  Someone boiling water at sea level is going to get a different result then someone doing the same in Denver.  However not because it is based on the subject observing or anything within them.

I find that most who argue for moral subjectivity either don't understand the argument (that it is talking about ontology and not epistemology).  Or that they are inconsistent between their belief in moral subjectivity and their actions.  It is quite difficult for us to act as if morality is subjective.   Here is and article about Seven Things you cannot do as a Moral Relativist  I might quip a little over the authors choice to call it relativism vs subjectivism (as I already discussed that objective does not equate to absolute).  However I think his reasoning is sound, with this small change, and I believe that it is the meaning that the author intended to convey.  Normally, when someone insists that morality is subjective, I ask what in the subject; morality is based on?  In application, I find that almost no one is a moral subjectivist.  And if there is someone who applied this belief consistently, most would think that there is something wrong with them.

[Little Henry]

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Agreed.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

Sure, when we talk about our tastes we're merely expressing some fact about our own personal tastes..most of the time. 

Correct, but nothing about the subject ITSELF we are talking about.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

I guess it would depend on what you were eating and why a person found it disgusting.  They might have some moral objection to meat - or example..but yeah, for the most part "how can you eat that shit?" is a rhetorical question.  

Ok, lets keep it simple...lets assume it is a piece of fruit.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

Is this cafe in hell?  

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

Sure.  That's how we use them, regardless of whether or not they are.  As evidenced by all of those people who make moral pronouncements that are clearly non-factual.

Some of our moral pronouncements might correlate to moral facts of a matter, but which are they and how would we go about establishing them?  That we take something to be a fact won't actually make it factual, nor will it's use as a factual proposition.

So if i told you i have been raping a young girl, will you tell me that for a fact i am doing something wrong?

---

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

Are you saying you need a god to be good? I am assuming you as American, and I am Portuguese, would eating snails be as offensive as raping you? In other words would something i do that harms no one else equal to harming others? Is that what your god tells you?

I am saying, without God, there is no such thing as good or evil. Just a collection of desirables and undesirables acts, but not good/bad, right or wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No matter what the OP thinks, I derive my morality subjectively and make no claims otherwise.

[The Grand Nudger]

Animals act on instinct for its own survival or altruistic, not right/wrong.

Harsh words coming from an animal.  Don't you act according to what is right or wrong?  Also, ofc, your own survival and your own instincts and whatever you take to be altruism?

We see in the wild where a group of ducks pack rape a female duck. Are they doing anything wrong? No they are not. if they are not doing anything wrong, then why is it wrong if me and my friends pack rape a girl?

If you have to ask, you're probably no more a moral agent than the duck.  

Under naturalism/atheism, humans are just animals, animals with more complex nervous systems, but still just animals.

That's true "under" whatever you believe as well.  

Why is it not wrong for ducks to pack rape, but wrong for humans to pack rape? where does this obligation come from that doesnt exist for any other animal, but it does for humans?

We call it moral agency, moral competency.  It's not actually unique to us, but we definitely have an ovedeveloped sense of it compared to all the other animals.

We also see apes kill each other for land. Is it wrong for apes to kill each other in the wild? No. 

Humans also kill each other for land, so why is it wrong for humans and not for other animals including apes?

These sentences were redundant, humans are apes and we do kill each other for land and we -don't- always consider it wrong.  

You can say humans can reason, but that just presupposes moral facts do indeed exist, ie objective morality.

The ability to reason doesn't presuppose moral facts or an objective morality.  It just gives us a better tool than thee other apes for investigating whatever moral facts of the matter there may be, if there are any.  

Empathy? Empathy does not make something right or wrong.

No one said it did, but without empathy you will find it very difficult to underatand -why- we think some thing x is wrong.  You will find yourself asking questons like..

"Why is it wrong for me and my buddies to rape some girl?  Ducks do it!"
"Why is it wrong for me to kill somebody and take their apartment? Other apes do it!"

[Little Henry]

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

How it seems to you is a good example of something you take to be factual, which is non-factual.

I dont follow what you are saying. I am saying, if morality is subjective, then how can you condemn moral acts as being right or wrong if morality is subjective?

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

Is it babies?

If morality is subjective, then what does it matter?

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

Even for a person who sees morality as a wholly subjective affair..they still have their own subjective morality and their subjective morality probably contains the moral judgement "rape is wrong, child molestation is wrong"

If something is subjective, then it cannot be right or wrong. The words right and wrong only exist in relation to facts. 

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

Well, again, are the eating babies?  People say that rape is wrong because that's an accurate representation of their moral judgement in the matter in question.

But if morality is subjective, it cannot be right or wrong.

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

That;s not at all what a person who accepted a subjective morality would do.  Obviously, they;d tell you that rape is wrong, if their subjective morality said that rape was wrong?

Wrong according to what? Right or wrong only exist in relation to facts.

Is that what you believe?

Me, personally?  No.  I think that morality can be objective, at least.. and that rape is wrong.  Most of the people you will find here also think that rape is wrong, even if they think that morality is subjective.  Let's use your woeful food analogy.

If I told you that I thought chocolate was better than vanilla....and you said "well, that's just like, your opinion..man" - I'd say.."yes, yes that -is- my opinion....."  The same is true of a person who holds a subjective morality.  A person who holds (or accepts that they hold) a ubjective morality can say to you..rape is wrong, and when you pull the lebowski on them..they'll look at you like you have a dick growing out of your forehead and say

"Yes, it -is- my opinion that rape is wrong"

They'll also wonder if, just maybe, you have a little girl in your basement.

Your problem here is that you cannot use the words right or wrong in regards to non facts.

---

Hi LH.

I notice that like to set up a scenario that supports your position but I don't think it came with much thought. Not to many people are concerned with the morals of eating, unless you run up against a militant vegan or PETA member. Try eating meat around them and see is your are not morally judged. How's your food analogy now?

As to the rape and murder scenarios, you've certainly picked a couple of extremes that (I believe) almost all people would say is morally wrong. But morals get applied to more than just rape and murder. Stealing, lying, cheating, gambling, killing (murders lesser cousin), war, stem cells, abortion, gambling, sex, .......... Would you like to tell us your moral positions on these issues when considered in a range of situations? 

If you are honest I believe that you will have to admit that when looking at gambling (an easy one to pick) the moral aspect is subjective (I say it exists on a sliding scale). So if I'm a total ass and gamble every day to excess to the harm of myself and my family or work most would say I am wrong. If I buy a lottery ticket once a week and harm no one am I wrong to the same extent? It's still gambling. Can you take a moral factual position?

So, are you honest (watch out, moral people are watching)?

You only have to show 1 example of OM to illustrate that OM exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Correct, but nothing about the subject ITSELF we are talking about.

The subject of some comment regarding our tastes...is our tastes...so?

Ok, lets keep it simple...lets assume it is a piece of fruit.

Was it responsibly grown?  How is the labor compensated?  Does it come from a region currently in some civil war and do the proceeds of the proverbial banana fund the republic?  Fun fact, a significant amount of the food that americans eat, particularly in the winter, is grown on land owned by or business interests aligned with, mexican cartels. Chocolate comes almost exclusively from the most war torn shitholes on earth. The producers actually have to sift live ammo out of the beans for safety. At a basic level, are you just a gluttonous chump who's on his fourth heaping helping of fruit while a hungry and homeless person watches you through the cafe window like daylight porn?

Nothing about food or morality, is simple..lol  

So if i told you i have been raping a young girl, will you tell me that for a fact i am doing something wrong?

Sure would.