Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm perfectly happy saying I believe something, given its context.  I do not accept that ANYTHING is true, not given some context.

You ask things like whether I believe rape is wrong.  The answer is-- yes, no, undefined.  In a purely material context, I'd say no-- massive waves of QM particles are interacting, and as far as I'm concerned, they can do whatever they want.  In the context of the largely mythological Western narrative by which we define human characters (purity, liberty, nobility, evil), then I'd say that rape is wrong-- once that fairy tale is corrupted, there's no repairing it.

Cognitivism is a requirement of everything you just explained to me, and the fact that you are a moral cognitivist isn't threatened by any of it.  Non naturalists (read : people who think that morality doesn't reduce to anything "purely material") are both cognitivists...and realists.

Now, you can answer some questions for me, if you please.  What is wrong with harm, or with inflicting suffering on another?  ANY form of harm, or ANY form of suffering.  Why should suffering be eliminated, reduced, or prevented at all?  I really want your answer to this-- if there's no Skydaddy to set value judgments, then on what other basis are they to be set?

What's healthy about eating, eh?  Nevertheless, if we're talking about health...how/what/when we eat is relevant.  In exactly the same way harm is a relevant metric for what is wrong.  Why would there need to be a skydaddy?  If there is harm, and harm is at least one of the things that we are referring to..what would the presence of a god add to that, and what would it's absence subtract?

Moral realism has absolutely nothing to do with gods.

(I could answer that from a non naturalists point of view, as well...if you'd enjoy hearing me go on about forms and idealism, lol - we've been over this twice, it's a position called intuitivism, and it's shared by natural realists and non natural realists)

-the second question..well, even as a realist I can ask that, and I can decide that in some cases there's no compulsion to care about reducing suffering. However, whether or not we should care about reducing suffering has no bearing on whether or not harm is wrong. Something can be wrong, even if we don't care about it and don't accept that we should..happens all the time. Your moral motivations are a distinct issue from moral ontology.

To that, people might refer to rational self interest, base self interest, blind construction.....but they might also refer to principled or ideal and/or prefered versions -of- self. etc etc etc. Or maybe it's just who you are? You're the kind of person who wants to do the right thing, whatever that means to you. I suppose it would be satisfying to tell you that I ultimately derive my moral motivation from some well thought out and clear academic treatise on the subject...but that wouldn;t be true. I just -do- care about doing the right thing, and doing as little of the wrong things as I can get away with, lol. I feel guilt, I feel shame, etc.
(I still want to do a thread about blind construction..it's an exercise positively -made- for forum participation.)