Morality versus afterlife

[RoadRunner79]

Well, you're misrepresenting me entirely.

I don't believe so; I worded my response carefully.  Unless I have misunderstood this whole time, and you agree with me.  

I do think there is something very wrong with a man beating his wife. But I own that as my judgement. It's not objectively wrong because that is incoherent, as I've explained at length.

I expected this response.  And it is a part of why I do believe that there is an innate sense of morality outside of ourselves.   It is not just that most people agree, about what is moral.  Most people agree that bacon tastes good, but that does not make it objective.  In discussion, people are willing to say that there is no real right or wrong.  But when you get to specifics, about someone abusing ones wife, the story changes, and they do think there is something very wrong with it.  Do you think that this applies outside of yourself?  Are you pro choice, when it comes to abusing someone's wife?  

"Not objectively wrong" does not mean "Right", or even "OK". It's a language problem. You're mixing terms that don't go together. I object to the formulation.

Please explain.  My understanding is that you disagree to the "objective" part.  And that you are saying, that it could be right or OK, relative to the subject (it may also be wrong depending on the person). That the subject is the basis for determining if it is right or wrong, not a quality of the external action.  You are not saying that it is right or wrong outside of yourself.

Your analogy is flawed about the colour, because you're talking of opinions about a fact. The colour is a fact. What would be more apt is how people feel about the colour. Does it make them happy, or sad? Is it out of place, or fitting? There are no facts here, these are judgements.

Sorry, but I don't feel that morals such as abusing your wife can be compared to your tastes in ice cream or how a color makes you feel.  I believe that there is something very wrong with it though.

The question that everyone needs to ask themselves in this discussion, is what is the basis for moral classifications.  Is it based on a quality of what is being referred to?   Or is it based on and relative to the person in question?  If it is based in the subject, then I think that the question needs to be answered, what is it in the subject, is the foundation for that classification.  My favorite food is based on my tastes.  How a color makes me feel, is based in my emotions.  It would be incorrect to assert my tastes or emotions on to someone else.  Our thoughts on a subject are necessarily subjective (even if the focus of that subject is objective).  For me, it appears that in these discussions, it is just assumed that morality is subjective, with no reason why.  The only reasons I have heard for it being subjective are it there are disagreements (although in the basic sense morals are fairly the same).  And because we cannot determine precisely what is moral.   From this, I could argue that evolution is subjective, and thus no longer science (as with a number of other things).