Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Another subjective appraisal.  You don't like rpe due to your feelings, and other people don't like rape..so, wrong.  I'm still wondering, though..if there's anything about rape that makes it wrong, in your opinion?  Not you and your feels.  Rape.  

As I said, I call it wrong in coordination with others, but I don't think that anything, including rape, is intrinsically wrong.  Or, to generalize, there's nothing in particular about causing any type of pain or harm which is intrinsically wrong, unless a feeling agent decides to care about that harm.

I can prove this pretty easily.  Hands up vegetarians.

A realist would tell you that some thing x is wrong regardless of whether a (or any) feeling agent gave a shit about it. That, for example..even if you're a happy rapist, that won't make rape less than or other than wrong. Similarly, if eating meat were wrong, it would be wrong regardless of whether or not most people do it with a clear conscience (or a bib and a smile). There's an equivalent proposition that might help to shed some light.

Suppose you don't know that some bad thing x is happening. Does that make it not bad? You don't know about it so you can't give a shit. Does it matter whether the bad™ is intrinsic or extrinsically assigned? Well..not really. If you think that x is intrinsically bad, and you don't know about it, it's still bad..you just don't know about it..and if you think that x is extrinsically bad.......it's still bad...you just don't know about it.

As we can see, those are comments on the agent - not the moral status of x..so no amount of showing agents doing something (or not giving a shit about something) proves anything about the moral status of x. If there are intrinsically wrong things - people still do them. If there aren't..people still do the extrinsically wrong.

We can see the same relationship between any other fact and it's possession. It's true...for example, that not everyone realizes that evolutionary biology is a fact, and that not everyone cares about the facts of evolutionary biology. Many people do many things without taking evolutionary biology into account, and some people downright reject it. None of those things make evolutionary biology less-than factual. Moral realism, being a non-novel position of the nature of moral statements as purporting to report facts, has no requirement that anyone give a shit, or that no one get those facts wrong, or that all agree on the same facts or conclusions. Those would be additional claims unrelated to the primary conjecture.

Moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, they are true (or false).

Not.

Moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, they are true (or false) and everyone agrees.

or

Moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, they are true (or false) and everyone gets them right.

or

Moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, they are true (or false) and people will give a shit.

or

Moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, they are true (or false) and no one will do the bad shit™.

We do bad things. We're almost never fully informed, we disagree, and we don't always give a shit even when we are informed. All of this is true -about us- regardless of what is true about the ontological or epistemic status of morality.