Being vs. Believing

[The Grand Nudger]

Why can't both be goals, and the order of priority dependent on the person.

I see a problem with this if morality is subjective.  We evaluate whether we are good on rules we make ourselves, so both the bar and whether we've met it are set internally.  It's circular.

"We" are unlikely to have made those rules ourselves, of course.  So - "we" are still appealing to an external standard.  Not that, to my mind, this makes it any more or less rational or useful (over an internal standard, for example).  I'd say that we -accept- this or that standard, either actively or passively.....and we might have many different justifications for doing so - some of which may be circular. Nevertheless, whether morality is subjective or objective is meaningless in this context without a specific example to consider. It's pointless to say "if morality is subjective" and follow it up with what you did. It may be true, in some instances, in some, it may not, but neither are likely to have much to do with morality being subjective. Circular justifications for moral dictates are

A. perhaps not circular as an arguer would present
B. possible and present regardless of the objective or subjective status of morality
C. -and this is my favorite- we might be discussing a non-operative variable. Is the purpose of morality to be reasonable, is logic the proper foundation for morality...if morality and logic find themselves at odds (save the baby or the parents?) do we side with logic/do we want to side with logic..(is it even possible to "side with logic" in morality...I bet if I asked two people about that baby or parents question I'd get three logical conclusions) - or would we simply be asserting morality from the outset? IOW, assuming without a specific example (and ignoring that your summary quoted above may not be accurate) that some moral commands are circular, irrational, does that make them less desirable, useful, or justifiable....is that -actually- a problem at all? We are, imo, not rational creatures, we do not have entirely rational needs, and systems of morality must accommodate this. I think that logic and reason has a much better foothold in a place like law, than it does in morality, personally. Laws -must- be applied reasonably and rationally or the purpose of law itself (as we have conceived of it) is subverted. Morality......not so much........

For my own part, I'm content that morality is, as we see it to be, subjective, and that some things contained within our moral systems are not, strictly speaking, rational, but based in or founded upon our desires, or our emotional responses (happiness comes to mind). That we often, though not always, -apply- reason to these commands or dictates...after the fact. I don't see -any- problems with this approach to morality.