Subjective Morality?

[bennyboy]

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. 

Quote it.

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.

Conflating ideas about ought with meowing and fur provides a pretty impoverished view of the relationship between subjective agency and morality. It should be pretty evident that morality is probably multiple levels of abstraction away from pussy-petting, and if not that then at least one-- in order to form an OUGHT about a cat, you need first the perception of a cat, and then an abstraction about its value. Never the twain shall meet, and to equate them is a category error.