Subjective Morality?

[RoadRunner79]

... so how do you evaluate the world/others/actions with a subjective morality?

I spot a chance to chime in with my pet peeve...

A lot of times when people say "objective" they seem to mean "universal and eternal." As if any objective judgment will be the same always and forever. But I don't think that's what "objective" means. 

Say for example I assemble a panel of nutritionists to help me plan my diet. They can -- objectively -- figure out what's healthiest for me to eat. But that doesn't mean that it's best for absolutely everyone. 

And if new research shows that, contrary to prior theories, chocolate TimTams are in fact the healthiest thing you can eat, then the same nutritionists would have to adjust their objective evaluation to take account of these new findings. (I mention this because I am conducting a long-term experiment on the benefits of chocolate TimTams.) 

I think that the nutritionists' decisions will be objective if they are disinterested and unselfish. But they may nonetheless change their minds later, and may even disagree in the present.

Now if people want to debate the (perhaps religious) belief in a universal and eternal set of moral laws, that would be a different subject.

This is actually an example of healthy eating being objective. It doesn’t matter what the nutritionist thought, and what is healthy didn’t change because of it. This is not using the terms like talking about a reporter objectively covering a story, giving just the facts, and minimizing their feelings on the matter.

What is/was healthy remained the same. It’s not based on the people who are studying it, where right or wrong, or having had all the info, or where biased by their feelings. If it was subjective, they would be looking into themselves, and not outside of themselves.

---

Hmm. You'll have to cut me some slack, I can't formally do formal explanations. Here goes:

By describing the sun and it's state, I meant to remind of the inherent nature of objective events. I then argue this same inherent nature of objective events would include some of the traits/inconsistencies you pointed out earlier. Aka, the inconsistencies you describe are not traits of objective morality specifically, but of the idea of an objective thing in general.
By describing the sun specifically, I meant to show that your points were really arguing against the objective existence of a sun as well as objective morality. I do not relate the sun and morality in any way, except by their supposed objectiveness.

Similarly, linear transformations do not relate to objective morality directly. They are, again, pointing at the inherent nature of an objective event, which objective morality would also have should it exist.

What exactly fails here? Could you be more specific?

Are you saying that one NAMBLA (?) person would change the nature of a moral law from objective to subjective, or merely prove that it was never objective to begin with? If the former: that's not how I understand objectivity to work; if the latter, the following questions arise:

If moral laws are split between subjective/objective, do you hold that at least one of the objective laws, upon violation, could not be possibly held up by a violator as immoral itself (and therefore subjective)? If so, cool, if you have any specific examples of such a law, please share. If not, isn't that the same as entirely subjective morality, since you're essentially just waiting for the nutcases to get through everything?

So, just to be clear, you pronounce humans and their actions as either good or not good, independently of what they think about themselves and their actions? And, no matter how hard your moral judgement, you would accept the crowd's moral legislation instead?
Would you be comfortable to act on a conviction made by yourself? By the crowd?

My position on killing: moral under certain circumstances and certain mindset, immoral under most. 

It appears that you and I have different definitions of "objective" when discussing morality. I'm not going to play the "what is objective" game with you. 

Here:ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Get it? 

The NAMBLA person: I'm saying that the NAMBLA person would say that in a society of NAMBLA individuals that pedophilia is moral. You and I would say it's not. We've taken our opinion, NAMBLA has taken theirs. Therefore subjective, not objective. 

Stop interchanging "law(s)" with "moral(s)". They are not necessarily the same and I'm not going to discuss ramifications of laws and their application. That's another discussion. 

Human actions can be good, not good, indifferent, batshit crazy, .................... It all depends on the person(s) making the judgement. The coprophagiac says it's good to eat shit. What do you say? Oops, two opinions, tada, subjective, not objective. 

About the "you would accept the crowd's moral legislation", tell me your position on abortion. Seems to me that US society is split on it's morality. Damn, subjective again. 

And thank's for admitting that killing is subjectively moral based on set and setting. 

You might try reading this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

There is another definition or meaning of objective, used in philosophy, as I have been describing and have defined a number of times recently. You are talking about a different definition, and therefore you examples and rebuttals don’t really argue against the arguments here. Disagreement doesn’t mean that morality is subjective. Gaining understanding, or thinking that are closer to being moral than before does.