(March 14, 2016 at 6:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(March 13, 2016 at 9:44 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Notice you are no longer saying "rape is objectively evil according to my Catholic beliefs". Now you seem to be saying that what you say is evil is evil because it is an objective fact. That makes everyone of us moral subjectivists have to ask exactly how you in your subjectivity get hold of the alleged objective moral facts? Does believing there is a God who decides what is moral objectively bestow the power to know the difference to those who believe in that God? Is every Catholic a moral genius on this account?
It would seem that the most you are in a position to say is that "rape is objectively evil" in case my religious beliefs are true.. We all have to assume that your position for recognizing the truth is no better or worse than any of ours. If indeed there are objective moral facts you must at least explain how you arrived at these from within your human subjectivity.
My bold. You are correct, I just figured it was already implied. But yes, I am speaking according to my beliefs which I feel confident are true, but of course, there is always the chance I could be wrong.
So not so very different than the position we subjectivists find ourselves in. We also are right unless we're wrong. That being so it doesn't seem that adding "objective" adds a whole lot, does it?
If morals are objective in any sense -from my subjectivist point of view- it is because we find that various views are wide spread. Because of what you call free will no morals are binding on everyone regardless of what we call them. You say it is because the objective morals coincide with God's view. We say if it is because they coincide with what we find in human affairs. But, again, the person who is contemptuous of those morals is no more or less constrained in either case.
