Proving What We Already "Know"

[The Grand Nudger]

We can consider something subjective all we like, but..if it's a fact of an object, it isn't.  We're just misusing a word.  That's a really good example of a subjectivist claim, actually.  Because we personally misuse a word, we are convinced of x.  

Even feelings themselves might be called objective to a subjective thinker, because they are not really something one controls, and are based on evolutionary motivations that precede humanity-- they are inputs into the moral calculus.  You might even argue that all ideas, since they bubble up from parts of the brain to which we don't have direct access, are objective.

As before, a person can misuse a word.  You can make these arguments, but you shouldn't - if the goal is validity or accuracy. 

And even this is dangerous.  People take the targets of feelings as axiomatic.  OF COURSE babies are precious little sacraments, that must be protected with our lives.  OF COURSE, liberty is a God-given human right (whether you believe in a God or not).  OF COURSE, strange old ladies with too many cats who ramble incoherently are agents of Satan and must be burned at the stake.

People do lots of things.  Realist, subjectivist, relativist, and emotivist theories all appear to be descriptively true.  

But let me define "subjective" morality as I see it-- it is a moral system which is predicated mainly on one's feelings about the world, with rational justifications added later when necessary.

You may never grasp the distinction between subjectivism and emotivism..so sure, why not.  

That it depends on objective facts doesn't matter, unless the facts allow one to transcend emotions and arrive at a moral conclusion via logic.

That's the only thing that matters to objectivism.  Accurate descriptions of purported facts are not made less accurate because you do or don't feel some way about them. Have you ever considered that your commitment to the misuse of terms and replacement of terms with empty phrases is the only thing that your conviction here depends on?  That it is a textbook subjectivist claim masquerading as a realist claim? Is any of this true or false because it is an accurate representation of the facts it purports to report, or is it only true..that it's like, your opinion man..that you feel super duper emotively committed to?

You can probably see how the buck stops somewhere, unless you think that everything you've said here..right or wrong, has no relationship to the facts of the matters they purportedly address. Wherever that buck stops, is exactly where a moral conclusion can be arrived at, via logic, exactly as demanded. I'm not convinced that any such moral claim would mean much to you, or that you would feel a particular way about it - but it would be true just as any other claim is contended to be so. Simple function of the transitive law. If a is equal to b, and b is equal to c, then a is equal to c.