Subjective Morality?

[Dr H]

Did you omit the "morals" from my statement and just flip to conditions in math?

Previously someone said killing is both immoral and moral based on the conditions of situation. My view, changing based on conditions/circumstances makes the moral position subjective.

My point is that "conditional" is not the same as "subjective".

Two people might view the same killing, under the same conditions, and one might judge it to be moral, and the other might judge it to be immoral.  That is subjective.

---

How is that self-evident?

The flourishing of, say, Rickettsia prowazekii or Vibrio cholerae anywhere in my vicinity is decidedly NOT good by my standards.

YMMV.

I guess that depends on what your standards are. 

Living things come in conflict. The thriving of saber-tooth tigers maybe was not compatible with that of cavemen. Negotiations are largely ethical questions. How much are we justified in killing in order to encourage our own flourishing? 

People used to say that morals were based on "human flourishing," but I think we've learned to be less self-centered.

And we should consider carefully our reasons. If we dislike some living things purely for aesthetic reasons or personal preference, I suspect that modern ethics will encourage us to re-think that. 

But I see your point: certain examples are easy to agree on.

Yes, which brings the concept of "self-evident" into question.

To me, that's just the more general case of, for example, the claim of some evangelical preachers who insist that the Bible is a "self-interpreting book".