Which Comes First?

[Edwardo Piet]

Call out 'Mad-Dog' to rape the guy in question, and anyone who disagrees for that matter.

What are you talking about? What you quoted that you responded to, was me saying that you can't make an objective argument against a rapist, you can't show that it is objectively wrong by logic. So are you going to rebut that? Because I don't see how you have.

I obviously think rape is wrong, as most people do. And I have subjective arguments starting from the basis of my empathy and the fact I care about others, the fact I think suffering is wrong, etc...I just feel - naturally - that rape is extremely immoral. But are you going to respond to my point that this cannot be objectively argued?

Because you'd have to start with the assumption that any of these things are wrong, you can't objectively argue them.

Can you give me any evidence for any absolute moral values?

Probably not. But subjective morality is logically unfounded by your own admission - it's only an individual's creation, unsubject to logical confirmation.

So? How is that unfounded? It's a fact that we all have our own moral views. That's the subjective fact. Without any evidence that there are any objective moral values, your just left with my start point with the simple fact that we all have our won views on morality - the fact of subjective morality.

You hinge its importance [to you] on the fact that "you care", since there is no logical precedent.

Indeed, there isn't.

This is all meaningless.

In your own subjective opinion. And I don't believe there's any objective meaning to it, no.

Okay, so what's happened here? You've argued against the fact that you admit you "probably" don't have any evidence for objective morals, by telling me that if morals are only subjective then that's "meaningless", well sorry, that's irrelevant. That's a non-sequitur, it does not follow that because you - personally, subjectively - or anyone else for that matter; think that it's "meaningless" that it therefore isn't true. The fact you don't like the idea of subjective morality doesn't change the reality of it. And, on the other hand, you yourself have admitted you probably have no evidence for objective morals. So it's your view that lacks support. My view that morality is subjective is merely the fact we all have views on morality, you are the one lacking evidence: The burden of proof is on you.

You can call subjective morality "meaningless" all you want: But that doesn't change the matter of whether it's true or not.

...[murder] cannot be logically demonstrated to be wrong.

Or right?

Have you got any evidence that it can? It can only be shown once you start with the basic assumptions that we make, like suffering is wrong, cruelness is wrong, etc. When we start with basic moral assumptions. They themselves are just assumptions and cannot be logically demonstrated insofar as I can tell.

Do you have any evidence, out from the outset, without any assumptions, of any objective morality? Because all these assumptions are made by people, subjectively. Ultimately all we have evidence of is the fact we all have different moral views - which is subjective morality - right?

Yes, without assumptions, how exactly can murder be logically shown to be objectively wrong? Ultimately it's a subjective matter, right?

You can whine all you want and call it "meaningless", 'not true morality' or even 'immoral', but that won't change the reality of the matter.

EvF