Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

...
I am insisting that morality -is- an attempt to approach truth, and at least sometimes..it -is- an attempt that hits truth.
...

It's not.

Morality is an evolved system (a value stream).  Evolution cares not one iota about 'truth'.  Morality is all about utility and warranty.

Benny is much much closer to the mark...

I'm wasn't arguing for my position...so..okay?  I'm trying to get people familiar with the terms and the divisions of these positions, lol...by using my own positions to state how that constrains my objections or arguments.  

That said...there's nothing that you just wrote up above that a realist can't agree with.  However, and I keep baiting this hook..here again we have to find ourselves asking how morality, as an x evolved....has that utility, if it refers to no natural facts, if it does not leverage natural facts, if there can be no facts of the matter...a moral matter, if natural moral realism is categorically unacceptable?

You see..this dilemma only arises because the commitments to both realism and naturalism are -implicit- in any comment on morality as an evolutionary artifact.  People who object to realism in this way..reject those things required to support scientific conclusions like evolutionary biology.  

I'd say that there is a fact that you either do or don't have such fantasies. 

If by "moral fact" you mean anything factual which is connected with any part of the moral process at all, then I'd say:
1)  That's not what people mean when they talk about moral facts.

It -is- what subjectivists are referring to when they refer to moral facts.  What other people mean when they say the term has absolutely no bearing on that discussion.  

2)  Everything in existence is a moral fact to some degree, as you seem to take it-- that terminology has no value in distinguishing important facts (like the actual source of mores) from unimportant facts (like the fact that gravity undoubtedly is connected to the process of moral thought).

No, again, moral facts are specific.  Every fact cannot be a moral fact.  Moral facts are those things which refer to morality and are true.  If morality really is mind dependent, then that is a moral fact...even as random nubs use any of those words.....

Any reference to the specific mind dependent x that a subjectivist accurately refers to as the causal factor in a moral position is the fact of that matter, which is a moral matter....that makes their subjective morality declare y to be wrong.

Yes, what a subjectivist is refering to is not the same thing as what  realist refers to..but both of them refer to purported facts of a matter..which is moral...for...fucks...sake......

My view is crystal clear: mores are a mediation among feelings, ideas, and the environment, and they are predicated ultimately on feelings.  You could call feelings a "moral fact" if you like, but then we just have to find new words to talk about objective mores rather than those that are made up by a subjective agent in accord with how they experience their world.

Your view may be.  I don't doubt that you know your own mind.  I'm explaining to you all of the ways that this knowledge is lost in translation within meta-ethical semantics.

No one thinks that feelings are moral facts.  Non cognitivism (not subjectivism, for the umpteenth time) is a position that categorically rejects any moral facts.  If you hold to it, fine, but hold to it.  This business about mediation between ideas and environment is inconsistent with non cognitivism, however. If there -are- ideas to mediate between, that's an affirmation of cognitivism. If there -is- an environment to mediate between, this is an affirmation of objectivity. The presnece of feelings in this tripartate theory does not mean what you think it means, imply what you think it implies, demonstrate what you think it demonstrates, or conform to your stated position that morality is subjective.

You are arguing, with, yourself....

---

I'll ask again:
What is the definition of 'baseward'? (I've never come across that term before).
Please give an example of a 'moral fact'.

Now, into the weeds.

Baseward is just cracker archea for something pointed at the bottom of something else. 

So, while we're about it, could you please provide definitions for:

sure-

- beliefs

Things we hold to be true.

- states of belief

The act of holding something to be true.

- moral

-a descriptor, it denotes things with a moral component.

- moral proposition

an expression of one's moral positions.

- ethical/ethics

interchangeable with morality to meta ethicists.

- ethical proposition

interchangeable with moral proposition to meta ethicists.

Are these propositions system-inputs or system-outputs?

They can be either.  This is wrong and this is wrong because are both moral propositions.  One refers to the input from which the conclusion is derived, the other does not. In the most clinical sense..they would be outputs, as your statement (or idea) about the the thing is not the thing itself. Just a description of what you see.

---

I do expect, btw, to see some progress from someone, after all these questions and answers.  If it's just stonewalling bullshit...well.....Imma start cracking dick jokes real quick -and stop wasting my time explaining these positions to folks who are uninterested in their own positions and those positions implications..much less anyone elses.