Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Benny, I'm not telling you what -I- want to call anything..lol... I'm explaining to you how the positions are self defined, described, and differentiated.

I do this only so that, if you were operating under some misconception (and you have been) you would be able to accuratley express the position you legitimately hold.  If you thought, for example, that you were a subjectivist, because there are no moral facts and moral propositions reduce to some expression of our feelings about x...then you were wrong.  You are a non cognitivist.

If you thought, for example, that since you believe that there isn't a you or things so much as ideas with names attached and morality is all about ideas and this meant that you rejected realism..you were wrong, moral non naturalists are realists.  If you thought that it meant that you rejected scientific or naturalist realism..you are wrong, because both of those positions -also- think that moral propositions express ideas.

I'd say that there is a fact that you either do or don't have such fantasies.  That would be the fact of the matter of your angelina jolie fantasies existence.  Either you do or don't have them. I doubt that you thunk them up -just- because you felt like it, it seems like your biology might be giving you a push in the fantasy manufacturing dept, lol.......but hey, minor details, right? This is the same way that subjectivists refer to moral facts. There is a fact of the matter when it comes to whether or not you hold an opinion. Since the subjectivist considers this the basis of morality, this is the moral fact. If this fact is the -only- reason that x is wrong..then morality truly is subjective. However, this fact can coexist with realists facts in a world where moral realism is the more accurate description.

It might help to remember, that as you go up (or down) that flow chart, the next position in line doesn't deny the existence, or the facts, of the position before it. I can accept that some moral expressions are non cognitivist. I accept the validity of error theory and it's test cases. I accept that we hold subjective opinions not referent to any objective fact and that we sometimes build our morality out of them. I accept that even if there is no "natural world" moral propositions and facts could still be empirical, sensible, and objective.

Obviously, I don't see the point in deferring to you over the entirety of academia and the thousands of years that people have been engaging in moral philosophy. If you want to go to spain and order a drink...then learn fucking spanish, lol. It's not as if we could have a cogent or informative conversation if you insist on inconsistent and idiosyncratic definitions and semantics for common and well developed moral positions. Has it occurred to you that some of the answers you've been receiving are unsatisfying because they are the answers to the questions or objections you asked..but that you fielded the wrong objection for what you wanted an answer to? You stepped up to the bar intending to order a drink..and asked for a cat instead.

For example..you want a response to cognitivism, but for whatever reason you think that this response should demonstrate realism. You want a response to realism in comparison to subjectivism..but for some reason you think that this must include some non cognitivist objection. In reality, both subjectivists and realists have heard the non cognitivists assertion, and decided that they are meaningfully wrong. Both are moral cognitivists. Moral cognitivism does not demonstrate moral realism, but it is required for moral realism (just as it's required for moral subjectivism).

Is your every moral utterance a rube goldbergian way to say "yuck" - or are there positions and beliefs and ideas in there, that you take to be true? Don't worry about other peoples ideas, whether people agree with you, or any arguments...because, frankly, we're just not there yet. The status between realism and subjectivism is completely unaffected at this level, but we need to be able to answer this question in a specific way to even gt there. If you want to take it from the beginning..for -every- moral position, this is the first question.