Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

The contention was that every single more was just a verbalization of something that makes people feel bad.  Regardless of whether we're talking about mores...or morals...I don't think that's the case.  There are things we all take to be wrong in our moral systems, that don't make us feel bad...and there are customs and habits that we get up to.... that we get up to, not because if we didn't we or someone else would feel bad...and often enough for no reason at all, or no reason immediately accessible to the modern observer (driving on the left or right side of the road is a fucking more, lol).  

It's a very strong contention...and it needs to be pointed out.. that a person cannot maintain it to be true and be a subjectivist -or- a realist...because it's a noncog objection.  The notion that moral statements are not, in fact..beliefs about something that we take to be true or which could be true or false (which you agreed to earlier, btw, Benny)..but instead reduce to something more like..."yuck".  It also contradicts those earlier comments about morality being a mediation between x y and z.  

Sure I can.  I just have to disagree with the semantics on a flow chart.  It's easy.

Pointless, ofc you can say anything - but I'm extending you the courtesy of imagining that we are having a lucid and cogent conversation.

My position is super-simple, and not to be confounded by a lot of philosophical gobbledygook-- either mores have an independent existence, or a dependent one.  They have a dependent one-- without people to establish and maintain them, there would be no mores at all so far as I can tell.

-that's actually a third objection, at odds with previous objections and statements.  It's also the easiest to clear up.  Realists aren't stating that our moral statements don't come from people.  That would be absurd.  It's certainly true that if there were no people to believe that x was true..then no people would believe that x was true.

You talk about "moral facts."  If there are moral facts, then they can be interpreted only rightly or wrongly.  If there are no moral facts, then people will use non-moral facts in support of their own feelings.  

Realists would agree(ish). 

So I'd like an example of a moral fact.  Surely, since objective morality is dependent on moral facts, there must be gazillions of them which might be cited as evidence of the objectivity of morality in general, or this or that more specifically.

It depends on who you ask. 

Subjectivism contends that moral facts are an expression of states of belief, which are sometimes true, that are constituted by human opinion.  Every true statement about a personally held opinion is the relevant fact to a moral subjectivist - ergo the moral fact, or moral fact of the matter. There probably are a gazillion of them.  

Realism contends that moral facts are an expression of states of belief, which are sometimes true, that are not constituted by human opinion.   Every true statement that is mind independent is the relevant fact to a moral realist - ergo the moral fact, or moral fact of the matter. There are decidedly fewer of these than the former..regardless of what they are.

I wouldn't say driving on one or the other side of the road is a good example of a moral fact.

It's a textbook example of a more, though.  

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with driving on this or that side of the road.

I know, right?  The whole right side of the road thing is just a cultural habit enshrined by law due to the convenience of sitting on the rear left horse in a wagon team.  Hell, the british came up with it.....but they drive on the left!  Silly bastards.  While I don't use the terms more and moral interchangeably, and neither do ethicists (as you've been informed previously)..I just found it amusing that we happened to be talking about one way in which the two were similar.  

What's wrong is willfully disregarding perfectly arbitrary rules that have been AGREED UPON, because it represents an insult to the collective will of the society-- a willingness to endanger other citizens, and so on.  And people don't like that.

Why is that wrong?