Subjective Morality?

[mfigurski80]

Nope. There's the catch.
I cannot make objective moral determinations. I cannot make anything objective at all. Nobody can.

I can interpret it and analyze it. And, just like in harder science, I have to be a bit distrustful about all observations, but ultimately the current moral theories (specific laws, not meta about it) are presumably taking into account the largest body of information and are the best conclusion given the data/reasoning. Just like we can say people were objectively wrong about the sun orbiting earth, we can say people were objectively immoral to do certain actions -- we don't KNOW that the sun doesn't orbit the earth, I've never personally stood outside, being stationary, and observed that it does, but we have so much evidence that it's pointless to question at this point. Nevertheless, we are still observing an objective situation, even if not absolutely reliably.

Unless, of course, morality is subjective, in which case I can make all the subjective moral determinations I want

Who is the "we" you keep referring to?

Observation of the sun has nothing to do with morals. Position fail. 

If the observation/observer of the moral situation is not reliable then it's subjective. 

Curious, what is your position on abortion?

We <- You and I, provided that we both operate under objective morality.

Observation of the sun has everything to do with objectivity, however. The sun is objectively there, with an objective state, whether we observe it correctly or not. Likewise, morality, if objective, should be there with it's objective state whether we observe it correctly or not.
It's a metaphor, man.

If the observer is not reliable, that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If I ask a 5 year old to judge the correctness of linear transformations, he will not be reliable. Are linear transformations subjective? Most people say no (I say yes! They pull answers out of hat or somthn). Therefore, unreliability of the subject would not be enough to demonstrate that the thing being evaluated is subjective.
Also a metaphor^.

I'm trying to stay as far away from politics as I can, so I hope you don't mind if I don't answer.






My impression is that objective morality is valid (except for is/aught, which plagues subjective morality too) and can be used to make practical decisions within the world, while subjective morality cannot be used to make practical decisions because, if one knows morality to be subjective, the only way to evaluate another's actions is to knowingly impose one's own morality upon them (which starts seeming incredibly like objective morality) without consideration for their own morals. This is commonly held as immoral by both objective and subjective moralists though... so how do you evaluate the world/others/actions with a subjective morality?