Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

I've never cared about that terminology, only that morality is subjective, since it is predicated mainly on feelings.

Except that you've rejected that, giving feelings 1/3 billing in your own definition of morality.  I only require that there be a single idea, and an environment, and that's enough to establish my natural realism. Conveniently, those were the other two thirds of what you though morality was.

I'm reasonably certain that you are misrepresenting moral realism-- i.e. that moral facts aren't simply facts that you use to support your (subjective) moral opinions.  It must be possible to say, "X is moral, and Y is immoral," and to believe those statements to represent reality, i.e. a truth which transcends subjective evaluation,  i.e., the ought itself is a moral fact-- some ought ideas are right, and others must be wrong; and where two oppose each other, at least one of them must be wrong.

You may feel certain, but it isn't on account of your being reasonable.

It's pretty easy to demonstrate that this is not the case.  Look at the case of mercy killing.  Is it right or wrong to put someone out of their misery at their request?  It must be one of those, without regard to the feelings of either the requester or the person requested to carry out the act, or there's no real moral truth involved.

It might be, it might not be....to a moral realist, only the objective facts of the matter could lead to a sound conclusion on the matter.

The fact is that if you choose to value organic life, then the failure of that organism represents a loss to the world, and you will consider the killing immoral (a sin, probably).  If you choose other values (freedom over self, quality of life, money), then you will consider the euthanasia either morally acceptable, or a moral imperative.

Moral realists aren't locked into considering just one moral fact - they can incorporate as many moral facts as might be relevant.

So we are back to our meta-ought.  Why OUGHT we choose one metric or the other in the first place?  The facts here are not in dispute-- someone is sick, they are suffering, they want to die.

Sounds pretty simple to me, you should help them end their life.  What's the problem?  

For there to be a real morality, here, at most one of those positions can be correct.  So how do you resolve the dispute?  How do you access the moral rightness out there in the ether, and arrive at the one-true-right-choice™?

You don't realize that you're asking a malformed question...do you? Moral realism states that things are objectively right or wrong based upoon mind independent facts. It doesn't say that in every choice brought before you there will be at least one good option, that one of the positions will be the correct one. The One True Right Decision™ has nothing to do with moral realism. That's absolutism.

They can all be fucked up.................say it with me, exclusively sub-optimal decisions. Know what I do as a moral realist, when I find that every option available to me and some other asshole is exclusively sub-optimal, and morally equivalent?

Tell em to do whatever they're comfortable with, since it's all shit.