Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

Because, Khem, there are one of two conditions
1)  Harm is intrinsically wrong
2)  We dislike harm and call it wrong


The idea of "harm" means that there's a right or wrong state of things.  What is particularly right about survival of the species, or of the planet, or of the Universe itself?  By what standard is this rightness or wrongness established?

Ultimately, someone has to say, "I like this, and I don't like that.  And I like this so much that I will act to protect it, and I dislike that so much that I will act to prevent or eliminate it."

Someone might have to do that..for someone to do something about it - yes.  No one has to care for something to be right or wrong, though, again.  Still not seeing what a god is supposed to add or subtract?  Let's bring back our cat!

Is a cat only a cat if you care?
Is a cat only a cat if there is a god in the room?
If you didn't care, would a cat cease to be a cat?
If a god wasn't in a room, would a cat cease to be a cat?

I actually don't think that there's anything particularly right about the survival of species, or the planet, or the universe itself.  You'd have to ask that question to someone who did (though, I actually care very much about all three...lol..see caring and moral status are discordant again!).  Personally, I use standards of intelligibility, rationality, and objective demonstration.  In order to overcome error theory, I particularly like scientific demonstrations - and so all of this constrains the things I determine to be right or wrong.*

By contrast, the hypothetical god setting standards..isn't moral realism.... isn't natural realism, and is in no way demonstrable.  It's actually the proposition that one subjectivist moral system enjoys primacy over others.  What makes things wrongs in a god setting standards world?  Gods mind dependent judgements combined with it's perceived authority and the assent of the faithful (yet another example of -their- mind dependent judgment). You can argue competently against -that- moral system by asserting that there is no god, but it doesn't affect mine..since mine refers to no gods, since there is harm, and some things are harmful. Ultimately...that's what you'd need to object to in order to make an argument that some moral proposition of mine is false. You can disagree with me all you like about harm being a relevant metric for whats right or wrong...but that's not exactly going to be an argument in good faith..and your disagreement doesn't matter to me (remember, I'm a realist, an opinion and five bucks will buy you a cup of coffee in realism land). I don't need you to agree, and I don't need you to care, for any of my moral propositions to be true. They need only refer to a belief which I hold to be true, which is true, and refers to a natural externality. I believe that harm exists. Harm does exist. Harm can be objectively demonstrated in the natural world. When I tell you that x is wrong, I'm referring to a bunch of things that, together, amount to moral naturalism. You can refer to other things if you like (and harm isn't the only thing I refer to, either)..and all that will mean is that you aren't a moral naturalist.

OFC, religious people have been saying dumb things to the contrary for centuries...but if you're arguing with them - you're categorically not arguing with me, lol. If you think realism is wrong and harm based moral propositions are wrong because there is no skydaddy - the objection is a complete non seq. Realism and harm based moral props are true or false regardless of the existence of a god and have nothing to do with the existence of gods.

(a non naturalist, also not at all a god based position but still realism...could just tell you that if you're incapable of perceiving some moral fact of the sensible world..your faculties are malfunctioning or insufficient. It's nothing more or less than a failure to identify a cat when you see one. It's still a cat, you're just busted. Similarly, your less than credible contention that you have no moral motivation..just another demonstration that you're busted.)