Subjective Morality?

[Angrboda]

You believe in the subjectivity of morals without being able to provide any justification for your belief, and when challenged to support your belief, you say that you're simply going to go on believing regardless of whether you can provide evidence for your belief, and you have the gall to liken me to someone holding a religious belief on faith alone?  You're a joke, benny.  Provide justification for your belief, or you're the one behaving like a religious nutjob who believes things without reason based on blind faith.  So unless I believe what you want me to believe, and  jump through the hoops you want me to jump through, regardless of whether they are relevant, you're going to consider me the irrational one?  You're an idiot, benny.  A clueless, fucking, idiot.

Hmmm.  You seem to be tilting.  Are you sure you want to keep on with this discussion?

I've given justification, and am perfectly happy to give more, for my belief that mores are rooted in feeling.  One is the variance across individuals and populations (and over time); if moral realism is true, then we as a species are spectacularly incompetent at finding the truth.

And while lack of evidence for, or even a good example of, any objective moral truth, is not proof that objective morality is wrong, it leaves one to ask-- why would anybody formulate the idea that it is right?  On what basis would someone believe in the objective truth of something that cannot be either directly observed or strongly inferred from what can be directly observed?

And your justification was shown to be without merit. Yes I'm sure you are aware that feelings are involved in moral judgements, that fact alone doesn't indicate that feelings alone are involved in moral judgements, that just doesn't follow. You keep making a big deal about not having observed any moral facts. I'll make you a deal. You show that the idea of a cat you have in mind corresponds to an objectively existing cat, and I'll show that a moral intuition corresponds to an objective moral fact existing independent of mind. Until you can do that, shut up and sit down. The sheer bollocks of someone who regularly argues idealism and views that reality may be nothing more than mind complaining that I can't demonstrate the objective independent existence of a different class of objective facts is nothing more than outrageous hypocrisy. Why would anybody formulate the idea that reality is objective and independent of mind if they cannot demonstrate that it is? Why don't you answer your own question. So show me conclusively that cat facts are real facts or shut the fuck up. As to whether we can directly observe moral facts, we do, it's called moral intuition. You just have a problem in that you want to privilege some ideas as real and referring to objective mind independent facts ("observations") for no good reason, and deny other observations of real, objective, mind independent things as false, including moral intuitions, mathematical truths, and all of a priori reasoning. Hell, if "observation" is the standard, then you've ruled out even being able to make an argument for the subjectivity of morals because such an argument depends upon logic which is dependent upon a priori reasoning which you apparently want to deny. You're behaving in a profoundly stupid way, and I've come to expect better from you. Maybe I have been wrong to expect more.

If I'm getting heated it's because you are behaving in a palpably stupid manner. You yourself acknowledge that my inability to show or demonstrate that moral facts are objective proves nothing, yet that has been the bulk of your posts for some time now. When somebody keeps pushing an argument which they know is false, I have good reason to infer that the person is no longer arguing in good faith and is simply continuing to argue simply to save face. You're being objectively stupid about this and I don't think that's any accident.