Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Tada, you've just agreed with moral realism.

Tada, no I haven't.  Moral realism depends on moral facts and values which are independent of personal feelings or ideas.  I do not agree with that position, and hold the opposite position: that there ARE no moral facts or values which are independent of personal  feelings or ideas.

Is the existence of your toe mind dependent?  If my moral facts refer to your toe, in what way are -they- mind dependent?  

All of a moral realists facts will be like toe facts.  That's what they're telling you, by telling you that they are moral realists.  If toe facts can be independent of personal feelings and ideas, then it's unclear why moral facts couldn't also be, and even more unclear when those moral facts -are- facts about toes. Like the facts of what would happen to you if I cut one off.

You simply can't agree that there are mind independent facts which can support my ought positions and then maintain that you object to moral realism...because that very literally -is- the position of moral realism. That there are mind indepent facts, like facts about your toes, which constitute our moral beliefs, which are sometimes true, and an expression of our cognitive faculties.

(that's running back -up- the flowchart, to the bottom)

Now, I see it again up above..but this time to Jorg.... I've tried to steer you to it before, but what you're trying to express an objection to is not a moral fact (or moral facts). You have an issue with evaluative premises. That's fine as far as it goes, and all oughts require at least one evaluative premise... but the specific contention you've raised is that they are arbitrary. I don't think that they are, and certainly no more arbitrary...at worst...than facts about your toes and what would happen to you if I cut one off. I think that those things are valid and relevant evaluative metrics or premises by which to judge whether it would be good or bad to cut off one of your toes.

How about you?