Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

-and neither does my contention that rape causes harm.  I don't have to pretend that this is objectively true, it can be demonstrated to be so, regardless of what my or anyone else's opinion of the matter is, whether anyone cares, or whether gods exist.  

My moral proposition is just as objective as any of those statements..and you still haven't addressed you own failed objection.  Can you tell me that a cat would not be a cat if you didn't care, or if there wasn't a god in the room?  If you can't...... then we're done with the both the skydaddy and the caring shit.  

Aren't we?  Though, I'm going to go ahead and register my displeasure here..because I know that even though it's doa..you'll just try it again in a few pages, lol.

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.

The same as the nature of -any- is/ought bridge...facts in combination with at least one evaluative premise.  That is what is/ought is..though many people in this thread (and others - and a whole bunch of religitards....) are under the impression that the term referred to the impossibility of deriving an ought from an is. I have explained this, at length.  Though it may have been before you came in.

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

That's twice you've denied something I could just quote you on.  I get that both times, upon reflection, the comments have become untenable, and that there's at least the possibility that you communicated yourself poorly or weren't aware of the implications of the statements or hypotheticals.  Frankly, that's become par for the thread..in what's turned out to be a giant knot of confusion and misconceptions about meta-ethical positions. : shrugs :

I'll cap this one by repeating something vulcan said earlier. A realist isn't telling you that their moral propositions are more real, more true, or more objective than other real, true, and objective stuff...they're telling you that they are exactly as real, true, and objective as all of the other real, true, and objective stuff. They're telling you that moral propositions can be like that, like other types of knowledge. So..find me some objection that I couldn't leverage against you knowing your own name, some objection that I couldn't leverage against the idea that other people exist.....then we'll be on to something. Moral realism stands or falls with all other knowledge -like that-. If moral realism falls..that does too, and we're all wrong about a bunch of shit for the same reasons.

---

---

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?

Yup.  Exactly like that.  Except without all the torture shit..though, at the end of the day we're gonna hit the cow over the head with a brick so all of the ethical treatment in the world will have to eventually confront that fact.  

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.

The current status of livestock production is about as far away from what I want as it could be.  Not only are we doing things I think are bad ideas (and even immoral ideas)..we're doing them to the wrong fucking species of animal for a whole host of reasons..lol.  So this example..isn't an example of the failure of moral realism..but the failure of moral agents to make moral choices consistent with moral realism.  

Breaking News! Human beings are flawed and inconsistent creatures!

This just in! We sometimes have compelling reasons to do The Bad Thing™.

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?

It's probably not true that no one gives a shit (and I'm not actually morally outraged by terrorism, at least not categorically)..not that it would matter if it were to a realist....for the umpteenth time.  

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

How about no?

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.

You're talking about intersubjective moral failure.  Moral realists also consider this a failure.