Objective Morals+

[John V]

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".

IMO your interpretation of what I say is poor, and so I have to say I never said to your characterization. For instance, ignoring qualifiers like many and might and drawing an absolute from the statement.

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.

Not necessarily. As already explained, one could subjectively choose an ordered system of morality, so it would be simplistic to say 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.

You can’t prove that one is more sound than the other. As they differ, I don’t see that “all equal” is correct wording.

3. Morality CAN be discovered with sufficient wisdom

No, as already noted, you incorrectly drew this from my statement by ignoring qualifiers.

4. Morality CAN'T be discovered with sufficient wisdom.

Correct.

Now, on the first two points, you simultaneously seem to hold an explicit denial that subjective morality =/= anything goes.

I deny that subjective morality = anything goes. I don’t know what =/= means.

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).

I hold that you can’t prove one code to be correct and one incorrect.

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.

As already explained, one could subjectively choose an ordered system of morality, so it would be simplistic to say anything goes.

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.

Can you prove one or the other to be correct?

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?

As I’ve said before, no. My statement doesn’t even necessarily indicate that anyone’s morality changes.

Again, if you could prove that one system of morality were correct, you’d do that.