Subjective Morality?

[DLJ]

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
...

Oh, I see. In that I take it you are referring to Vulcan's diagram in post #152.

I have yet to decide whether that first question (regarding belief) is the best place to start.

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. 
...

"cracker archea"? What? White non-slave-owning single-celled microorganisms?

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

Things we hold to be true.
...

And are these 'things' held to be true unthinkingly/intuitively/subconsciously/non-cognitively or thinkingly/tuitively/consciously/cognitively?

Or both?

- states of belief

The act of holding something to be true.

A state is an action?

Doesn't it make more sense to think of 'status' i.e. one/zero or t/f?

- moral

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

Let's test that one:
"The moral of the story is..." >
"The descriptor denoting a thing with a moral component of the story is..."

Oh wait, we still have "a moral" in there, so let's keep going:
"The descriptor denoting a thing with descriptor denoting a thing with a moral component component of the story is..." >
"The descriptor denoting a thing with descriptor denoting a thing with descriptor denoting a thing with a moral component component component of the story is..." >

Anyway, a 'descriptor' implies, indeed requires, 'cognition' which means that you have excluded the non-cognitive components by definition.

I think we can do better than that. We need a definition without the bias.

- moral proposition

an expression of one's moral positions.

So if the processing of a moral (not the descriptor but the event) requires expression... can one express without cognition? Yes, if "Yuck" can be an example of an expression of one's moral position.

But "Yuck" doesn't strike me as a valid example of a proposition.

- ethical/ethics

interchangeable with morality to meta ethicists.

In which case, meta-ethicists should read some Best Practice manuals. Having two words for one thing is amateurish.

- ethical proposition

interchangeable with moral proposition to meta ethicists.

See above.

...
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 concur ... for 'ethical propositions'. I do not think that moral propositions exist... a moral does not require cognition but a proposition does.

...
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.   

In that case I'll ask no more questions. I am not interested in the positions. I'm just trying to determine where the meta-ethicists have gone wrong.

Cheers.