Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

No.... I'm not.   But if you are not going to discuss what you mean, then you are the one who is done.  Some mythicist may take your silence to mean, that you do not know.

I'm not going to keep explaining the same things that I;ve already explained to you, multiples times..and had already explained multiples times to others before you.  Particularly not every time one of your less than brilliant objections falls flat on it's face.  There is no reset button..and if there were, no thinking person would let you near it.  You'd have busted it with wear by now.  

So, you don't think that morality is a properly basic belief?

It's strange that you'd come to that conclusion, what with me telling you what I think is axiomatic to morality, and how it is an objective standard based upon harm.  Have we found yet another term you don't understand?  Try googling it.

---

I'm referring to when they try to co-opt this and take credit for it, so their appeal to authority fails where the evolutionary explanation does not.

Conversely, their appeal to authority fails when their own proposed authority runs afoul of the objective moral standards.  The butcher of cities does not get to comment on civility, the murderer of the better man knows nothing about justice or atonement.  

Do we become the absolute authorities? That doesn't seem to make sense. That seems like a recipe for falling under an absolute authority which in and of itself is not very helpful when it comes to preventing harm. Having an objective ideal is fine but imbuing ourselves with the power rather than the idea is somewhat arrogant and that should, according to the axiom, be avoided for what it can lead to. You could call it an absolute STANDARD we're aiming for (maximizing well-being and minimizing harm) but the agents involved? I don't feel comfortable going that far.

I was speaking about the standard being an absolute authority in a meaningful sense, not it's operators.  If we want to know whether or not something is immoral or why, we refer to the harm it may cause.  There is no other way to do so and still speak authoritatively about an objective morality.

And yes, we use objective standards to make our case for why this is this and that is that, but if we're using the same objective criteria and coming to different conclusions (your example is inappropriate because the two things are not directly comparable; I would cite the sinking ship dilemma here instead) then that's subjective, is it not? Also when it's a question of degrees, even when the action is agreed upon, is a subjective measure. I don't understand why you keep trying to dismiss that, it seems odd.

Murder and manslaughter not being directly comparable?  That's a new wrinkle.  That's the very first thing we try to determine when one person somehow manages to kill another. That we can determine one to be murder and one to be manslaughter by the same objective standards doesn't make something the least bit subjective.  We are assessing the object - the specifics of the death.   A "question of degrees" is similarly objective.  

I wouldn't, and couldn't dismiss the difference between manslaughter and murder in the first or second..but these things have set conditions and requirements that we can objectively refer to in order to make the distinction.  That doesn't make them subjective, it makes them different things, objectively.  The prosecutor doesn;t say to the jury "I'm feeling vindictive today, so I'm going to charge this person with murder in the 1st".  They make their case.  Similarly, they do not think to themselves "I feel merciful today...so I;m going to charge this murderer with manslaughter" - they assess the specifics of the case.  Ultimately, what is legal does not always align with what is or is not moral..but in this instance there's a strong correlation since there is, in murder or manslaughter, a moral fact of the matter.  That moral fact of the matter is what is referred to in making the distinctions... it's demonstrable, and independent of any given moral subject.

Toss us a formulation of whatever dilemma you had in mind.  We'll apply an objective standard and see what we come up with?

I'm amazed you could compare murder and manslaughter when the intent is the central difference. This is why I'm concerned about your view and definitions of this and always have been.

But let me illustrate a specific situation that you are not grasping, perhaps that will shed some light. The sinking ship dilemma I'm referring to (which I first learned about in a sociology class, so maybe it's not commonly known) is a hypothetical wherein there's a ship sinking and only one lifeboat, able to only hold X number of people while the ship contains some number greater than X. One must decide which of those number of folks get on the lifeboat and which ones drown. Yes, you would base the decision upon objective criteria (a doctor is more valuable than a medical student, for instance) but not everyone would reach the same conclusion, even if using the exact same objective fact to justify their decision. You can't simply remove subjectivity from the equation and I don't understand why you would want to do that anyway.

And what I meant by degrees is, if two situations are extremely similar (please don't make the mistake of one where intent is the difference, that's just silly) then a subjective decision on the application of disciplinary measures is required for both. Or even a situation on its own, not needing comparison to another, is still in need of a subjectively determined solution. Simple compensation for whatever was lost or damaged, or some other penalty on top of that? If so, just how severe of a penalty? That's all subjective. Those are the kinds of things you're not going to get a consensus on or be able to say definitively that it's always the correct approach to a given situation.