Subjective Morality?

[Angrboda]

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.

Wrong. I do not claim that it's objectively wrong. I claim that it may have an objective basis. That incurs no burden of proof. You do, however, claim that it is not objective. That does incur a burden of proof.

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.

Opinions about the nature of reality have varied over time, too. Opinions about the nature of reality are still the most variable of facts in existence. Ask a Muslim, a Buddhist, and an atheist about where we go after we die and you'll get three different answers. Are you suggesting that therefore there is no objective reality? Opinions about mathematical truths have varied over time as well. Not about 2+ 2, but about the axiom of choice, the question of whether math and logic are explicable in terms of the one or the other, and so on. In morality, some basic facts like fairness is good haven't varied at all over time, so you're simply cherry picking your facts in order to support your conclusion. Even if that were not the case, at best this argument would show that moral facts are not like mathematical facts or facts about apples. That's a proof by analogy which only follows if we have reason to expect morals to be analogous to mathematical facts or cat facts in the way you suggest. Ultimately it's a very weak and inconclusive argument. Additionally, there are explanations for why morals have varied over time. Your ignorance of them is just that. Ultimately this is an argument that because certain epistemological facts hold, then certain ontological facts follow, and that's simply a non sequitur.

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?

My opinion doesn't depend on anybody getting anything right. What makes you think that physical realist facts, or mathematical realist facts, or any other type of fact you can name are not in the same boat? I don't know exactly what you mean by faith here. It seems like you're simply trying to make an analogy between moral realism and something that you consider bad. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that moral realism is wrong, so what's the point?