Objective Morals+

[DeistPaladin]

[quote='DeistPaladin' pid='413459' dateline='1363097926']
So, I said that subjective is not equivalent to anything goes. It can be anything goes, but isn’t necessarily.
...Yes. If you could prove it, you’d do so, rather than repeating it and expressing incredulity.

OK, let's back up. The reason I repeat myself and quote what you've said is because you seem to be all over the field here. You seem to be saying one thing and then later say "I never said that". My incredulity stems from an inability to understand just where you stand.

Your positions, please clarify, seem to be:
1. Subjective morality does NOT mean anything goes.
2. All subjective morals (or lack thereof) are all equal and you can't prove one is more sound than another, even using the extreme examples of KT vs. TA.
3. Morality CAN be discovered with sufficient wisdom
4. Morality CAN'T be discovered with sufficient wisdom.

Now, on the first two points, you simultaneously seem to hold an explicit denial that subjective morality =/= anything goes. You also hold that a moral code of a king who molests children is equal to the one that says molesting children is wrong (that TA can't prove otherwise). To repeat your stance on the matter (bold emphasis added):

As both are subjective, you cannot prove that your set is more sound than his.

"As both are subjective" would indicate you think that the subjectivity is the critical factor that makes it impossible to say which morality is better.

So, because both are subjective evaluations, they are both equally valid and so anything goes? Or is there something I'm missing? Please clarify your thinking here.

You should have stopped at harm. By mentioning other systems, you’re showing yourself that you don’t know that one is correct.

I've yet to see a single philosophical model on moral evaluation that satisfies me completely. I'm most sympathetic to the Bentham Utility Principle but this has its flaws. (Fictional example) Should Sarah Connor have killed Dyson since one murder of an innocent man to save 3 billion lives plus human civilization? Isn't that a bargain? I don't think so but strict Utilitarianism might say otherwise.

Morality is a complex issue but admitting I don't yet have all the answers isn't a reason to just insert a quick and easy "GodWillsIt" to fill in the gaps of our ignorance.

No, not to my knowledge.

And this is points 3 and 4 of what confuses me about your position. You really need to elaborate better than a simple "nuh-uh", especially after you declared that...

I'm just suggesting that more people might agree with God if they had his knowledge.

So is morality something that can be discovered with sufficient knowledge or not?