Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

Wow, a false equivalency of this magnitude is just...just staggering.

What would the point in calling a maintenance of your own analogy a false equivalence be?  I'm trying to find agreement here and when I do...you find a way to argue with yourself?

I mean, shit, a chocolate bar with 15% nuts is far more apt because I'm talking about the FRAMEWORK of a moral system and not whatever the hell it is you seem to be rambling about here.

Okay..but, if I now use your chocolate bar analogy...will you accuse me of leveraging a false equivalence for having done so?  Let's say that a chocolate bar is, objectively, 15% nuts.  Does that then ensure that I will be able to accurately identify either the ratio, the nut, r even that it has nuts?  Presumably, something could be wrong with my tastebuds.  That wouldn't make the chocolate bar any less than 15% nuts.  Suppose something -was- wrong with my tastebuds. Is there no other way to figure out how much nut is in a chocolate bar?

You keep insisting there's this objectivity thing here which I continue to point out is not that, at least not the way you define it, and I personally can't define it because I'm convinced it doesn't exist.

I'm asking you if there can be.  You seem to be the kind of guy who could identify an objective fact about rape, for example.  

We can use all the objective data we want and still disagree about to which degree x and y are good or bad, hell, like I said, we can even use the same exact data point to do just that.

OFC we can..though, we assume that an insistence on objective data would help us to resolve those issues, those arguments..when we encounter them.  That;s already how we employ objective data, isn't it?  

So whatever little use objectivity has in the overall equation, it's vastly dominated by subjectivity.

I suppose, if you give it no effort, and no thought, and employ no tools, and refuse to engage in a back and forth discussion of those facts..then yeah..it's dominated by subjectivity.  Though theres somethng to be said for our behaviors accurately modeling the objective good by instinct alone.

This, to me, suggests that we need that objective schema and those tools if we want to make competent moral judgements with any sort of reliability.

I don't know what was so hard to grasp about that. How much worse is it if someone commits murder vs. involuntary manslaughter if the circumstances that led to a person's death were identical?

If one person committed murder and the the other involuntary manslaughter the circumstances that led to those deaths -weren't- identical.....so?  That's a good place to try a little objective morality, though.  What is it, about the manslaughter charge, that makes it less bad?  Is it the lack of intent to do harm?  

I mean, I honestly couldn't think of a way to quantify that or even find any empirical data about how to go about determining that. Yes, objectively a person is dead and a person is at fault, but beyond that...fucking minefield. At some point subjectivity isn't just the one driving, it's kicked objectivity out the passenger door.

Well, then perhaps you should leave it to those who can?  We'll give you the list when we're done with it.