Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Suppose I used to eat meat, but then I decided that enclosing animals in tight quarters and shooting them in the head with a bolt gun to put them on a bun was too painful an idea for me?  Would my vegetarianism be a moral position?  How far from skull-fucking is that, really, and how acceptable is it to you?  I'm pretty sure you're okay enough with it to buy a burger.

I'm more or less okay with alot of bad things, I'm sure.  Having previously read your explanation for your dietary choices I'd say that there was a moral position or ten involved, sure.  

What if I decided (rationally) that reducing meat consumption would free up crop lands to produce more grain and legumes for people to eat, thereby reducing the net suffering in the world?  Wouldn't this still require me to care about reducing suffering-- because I dislike suffering

IDK, you might require that.  I don't.  

Is there a moral truth about killing animals?  Is one party horrendously wrong, but nobody will "get" that it's them?  Or is it that some people, when they think about it, are deeply repulsed by the idea, and some much less so?  Or perhaps that their enjoyment of meat (read: the feelings they get when they eat meat) are so important to them that they're not willing to consider it?

I think that there are alot of moral truths in the killing of anything.  Doesn't make me give a shit about a fish...but it does remind me to treat them better. 

As for skull-fucking your neighbor.  There are all KINDS of feelings about this involved.  If people were emotionally neutral on it, then they wouldn't feel the need to make rules about it.  The same goes for all kinds of harm: I fear death, so I accept abstinence from murder as part of the social contract, even though people leave their fucking shopping buggies in the middle of the aisle every day.  I very much dislike pain, and in fact when I recognize pain in others, it causes me distress; I do not want either to feel or to inflict pain, so I happily accept rules to that effect.

Sure, there are feelings involved.  

That's the first question, yup.  Do you think that you are in a state of belief.  You indicated earlier that even asking the question was absurd..ofc you are.  If that was an earnest response (and it certainly seemed like it, lol) then welcome to the cognitivists club.  There are error theorists, subjectivists, non naturalists, and realists in here.

No, I'm pretty that didn't happen.  I don't think I would call that question absurd.

...................................

You seem to be doing this weird Socratic moving of goalposts.  Is this another one of those threads where you keep arguing, but don't actually have a point you are trying to assert?  Let me ask you bluntly-- what's your position?

Moral naturalism, ofc.  I'm torn between my options in that regard - but pretty much stuck with the camp.  

I think that our moral propositions express states of belief.
I think that our beliefs are sometimes true.
I think that the facts of which our beliefs are constituted can be mind independent.
I think those facts are natural facts.