Subjective Morality?

[mfigurski80]

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/

You're using the everyday definition... here's a more rigorous take from apologetics.net: "In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception" (http://www.apologetics.net/post/What-is-objective-morality.aspx)
Main difference here is that it's not only not influenced by personal feelings, but has a truth value absolutely separate from perception.

Also, a point I have repeated, explained, and re-explained: Multiple differing opinions do not prove subjectivity
I shall provide the example: Claudius Ptolemaeus is of the opinion that the sun orbits the earth. You and I are presumably of the opinion that the earth orbits around the sun. We have 2 different opinions, therefore: by your argument, the solar system is subjective and so existing only in relation to one's perception. Yet, the heliocentric model is objective, as it exists independently of anyone's perception. To argue otherwise is to doubt reality itself.
Therefore, differing opinions are not enough to demonstrate subjectivity
Therefore, by showing that opinions differ on morality, you did not demonstrate morality to be subjective. 

Also, I did not admit to subjective morality by my position on killing: I hold that position to be true apart from anyone's perception. My position can be as specific and situational as it wants, it will always be true regardless of perception or other effects. Just because morality isn't simple doesn't mean you get to call it subjective.
Note, I am not trying to defend my position here, just demonstrating how I treat my positions.

Will save the article tho, it seems like a good Hume summary. Thank you.

---

Yes, but this doesn't really support a subjective morality -- change in moral interpretation can happen under objective morality as well.
In fact, the very idea that people argue over morals -- you mentioned the gay transformation --  suggest that they think it meaningful to argue over such morals, aka, that people recognize their own morality as better than another and are capable of transmitting that to people who don't yet hold that morality. How? Shouldn't a moral interpretation be self sufficient, if subjective? Why would anyone change their morals?

That last question constitutes a meta-morality: why should we be moral?  But that hints at infinite regress-- any reason FOR moral thought instantly becomes part OF moral thought, and then you ask again-- why should I care about that?  And so on.

The answer isn't a moral answer, but an observation: we are a social species, and our social instincts include feelings of justice, empathy, outrage, forgiveness, and so on.  Since morality is an expression of our humanity, then it will attempt to reconcile those various feelings with the environment, social and otherwise.

You could argue that a general moral sense is truly objective, since there are signs of it in animals which lack the capacity for language.  My dogs, for example, show jealousy and offense when I favor one over the other.  If they could speak, they'd tell me how immoral it is that I sometime run with only my beagle, or sometimes let only my Yorkie out of their enclosure to sit on the bed while I read to my son.

As for specific mores, or their collation into moral systems, surely those are a reconciliation among instinct, ideas, and environment.  Since we are evolving technologically, the way in which we have to deal with our instincts, and the way in which we are presented with moral ideas (instantly from around the world, for example, rather than just in the local church) constantly imposes moral questions on us: how do I really FEEL about homosexuality?  About freedom of speech?  About democracy?  About women's equality?  And then, if the way I feel about it isn't approved by my social context, I will decide how I feel about angry forum posts, or losing my job, or being shot in the face.  As the picture emerges (for me), I will pick my battles, surrender others, and attempt to continue living my life.

That's how morality is sorted out, in my view.

Yep. Is/aught gap strikes again.

Anyway.
Thank you, @bennyboy. I think this was actually what I was looking for.