Subjective Morality?

[bennyboy]

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?

None of these represents a subjective value judgment which someone is pretending to be objective.

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.  

You haven't explained the nature of your is/ought bridge. What is it? And once you explain that, perhaps explain why you made it.

(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.)

Have I said I have no moral motivation? That doesn't sound like something I'd say at all.

---

As a realist, I will actively choose to do some amount of harm to prevent a larger amount of harm or produce a meaningfully greater amount of flourishing.

. . . like allowing the tortuous imprisonment and murder of animals, in order to prevent the more important harm of a man not having a hamburger-- what with the average American wasting away to a skeletal frame?

And I don't say this to be mean, but to show that mores kind of seem to line up with what people want. It's almost like mores are an expression of desires or something. It seems strange to me that we will put a man in jail for an i-Phone, but tear young mammals away from their mothers and shoot bolts through their brains so we can put them on a bun, and never look back.

Or how is it that the US has bombed thousands of brown people at funerals, weddings, even children's school buses (indirectly through arms sales at least), and nobody gives a shit unless it makes a good soundbyte for someone's campaign? But then when some Muslim shows up with a couple pounds of dynamite and a ski-mask, we are morally outraged at the terrorism?

What happened to harm as a metric for morality? Should it be limited only to people? Only to Americans? White people? Rich white people?

My point is that when we're surrounded by like-minded individuals, morality starts to SEEM objective, because there's relatively little variation from individual to individual. But actually-- it's just a bunch of rules we make up as we go along. There's no science to it, no objective truth behind it.