Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

-all that follows is that the subject -believes- it to be the correct action.  That different actors would pick different actions as those "best actions" is the very crux of subjective moral statements.  

So then you would be saying the actors belief of the action being best/correct/right does not correspond to the determination of the morality of the action. To which I respond that if this is the case you are no longer talking about a subjective morality and would be compelled to ask what is the determinate of the morality of the action?

That some actors would consider a portion of the "best" actions of another set immoral is likewise the very crux of subjective moral statements. Subjective morality does not claim that all moral actions are right. It claims that morality is subjective. Period.

I think it is funny when you are inclined to throw out nominal definitions alone. Subjective morality means morality is subjective. Period. Does this definition have any implications? Or is it merely a tautology? If it is merely a tautology than you waste your time even saying it.

If it has implication than what might they be? Might we say an implication of morality being subjective is not simply that it is performed by Subjects, but that that the quality of the act is determined subjectively at the time of action by the subjective actor? Then may we say the actor may engage in any number of actions? As a generality may it follow the various actions engaged in by the subjective actor shall be of a moral quality as determined by the subject at time of action?

If the aforementioned is acceptable and we say the Subject engages in actions they believe to be best/correct/right than it follows that whatever actions the Subject engages in are to be morally determined as best/correct/right overall in accordance with the Subject's determination at the time of action. In such manner even known immoral actions are determined as moral.

If people don't appeal to a fictitious entity they only have two other poorly formed choices of your own design.

If they do not appeal to a fictitious entity (as they need to appeal to a fictitious entity for subjective morality as well) they only have one poorly formed choice which would be ethical utility. However, ethical utility allows for any number of immoral actions and may be said to not suffice as a schema of morality anymore than subjective morality. So it would appear the day is not over yet.

You have a fixation with telling people what they must do which I find entirely unsurprising.

Logic has that effect. Or if you like, "Morality is compulsion, but it is only internal compulsion." - Kant.

---

Do you think a guy cheating on his wife believes it is the "right" thing to do?  Or a heroin addict hitting a needle after three years clean?

No, I disagree with your thesis.  I think people are perfectly capable of doing things that they consider wrong.  That's because morality depends on ideas or a world view, and emotional and hormonal motivators can override them.

Now this I like!! So when we say the emotional and hormonal motivators override the morality what are we saying? If we were to ask one subject to such override about the morality of their action at that moment do you think they will say it is the wrong thing to do?

Normally they are likely to say that. But if we hold morality of the act is to be determined by the subject at the time of action, their normal view does not matter. Rather their view under emotional and hormonal override is the determinate of the morality of their conduct. So do they think that course of action is best/correct/right at that instance? Likely the answer is yes.