Subjective Morality?

[bennyboy]

Nobody needs to provide you a damn thing, benny.  You keep going on about this when even if we aren't able to provide an example that meets with your approval, it doesn't prove a damn thing one way or the other.  You're just being a disingenuous twat and trying to deflect from your inability to demonstrate that morality is subjective.  I provided an example, that rape is wrong.  You in all your cluelessness simply didn't understand the point I was making.  That rape is objectively wrong may be true, unless and until you show that it is not.  I'm not the one claiming something, you are.  So get to work and demonstrate that morality is predicated upon feelings and not predicated upon an objective truth.  So far you haven't done squat but piss and moan about irrelevant shit and deflect.

And this is why I compare this position to theism. You claim it's objectively wrong, then put the burden of proof on me to prove it's not. If it's objectively wrong, show that this is so.

I can easily demonstrate that at least some mores are based on feelings or individual ideas-- moral values have differed vastly over history, among cultures and individuals. There are very few opinions about whether 2 + 2 = 4, or whether apples are red (or green). That's because those are ACTUALLY objective facts.

If you are claiming there's a Truth™, and that some people are sage enough to get it right, and some not, then I'd argue that Christians hold this exact same position. Why should faith be a requirement for an understanding of a supposed objective truth?

---

...
Are you going to provide any good examples, or are you not?

He can't.  And I think I've worked out why.

Question to you:  Were you once a theist or deist and have since deconverted or were you never indoctrinated in the first place?

(I'm deliberately avoiding the question "Have you always been an atheist?" - which might give you a clue as to where these meta-ethicist schools have gone wrong).

I was exposed to fundamentalist Christianity at an early age by great-grandparents who raised me for a couple of years.  Plenty of it sank in for sure.

But I've never been a card-carrying member.

And FYI I don't identify as an atheist, but as an agnostic or ignostic. Give me any specific definition of God (like Biblical Sky Daddy) and I'll probably declare as gnostic atheist for that God. Not given a good definition, then I'm pretty open to all kinds of possibilities, more a marriage of QM and philosophical ideas than spiritual ones.

---

We both accept that our beliefs are..at least sometimes...  true.

My beliefs, as I see them, are only true-in-context. Given X, then it may sometimes be said that Y is true.

Given a material Universe, and that dishes are real, and discounting a very particular and special trick, I will say it's true that there are several dirty dishes on my desk right now.

Given that other people are real, that I accept the idea of social contract, that it is always wrong to do harm, and that psychological distress (as evidenced in screams or negative-seeming facial expressions) represents harm, then I'd say that rape is wrong.

See, we can negotiate very many axioms, and arrive at a working moral system, without having to believe that something is objectively wrong. Just wanting some things to be so, and others not to be so, is good enough.