Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

Saying OM does not exist but then saying "moral act X is wrong according to me" does not make sense.

Sure it does.  OM doesn't have to exist...and even if it does a person might not have access to it (you obviously don't, Mr "why cant i rape that girl and steal your house?"), but they can still tell you why they think that something is morally wrong.

Suppose you and i grab a tennis racket and ball. We go to a back street with no lines on the street.

You hit the ball, as soon as it bounces i scream "out". Naturally, you will say, "out according to what", i will say "according to me it is out".

You will then say "how can it be out, there is no line we never agreed on anything". I will say "according to me it is out".

So, in this example, what am i saying. There is nothing on the road, no lines, we never agreed on anything, how can i say the ball is out?

Moral disagreement exists.  Moral disagreement exists regardless of whether or not there is an objective morality..and two people both allegedly schlepping objective morality can also have a moral disagreement.  

Well, i must have some imaginary line in my head. This line does not exist in reality, it is just something i made up in my head that does not exist in reality.

In this case, i am suffering from a delusion, ie, i am acting in accordance to something that does not exist in reality.

I get that you think this matters, for some reason, but it doesn't.  You're under the impression, as a christer, that a ghost tells you what's right and wrong - but the fact that you're suffering from this delusion doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong to do x, either to you or to anyone else.

If OM does not exist, ie, moral facts, then claiming a moral act as wrong is the same as the tennis example. You are suffering from a delusion.

I'm not a moral subjectivist....but, okay, and?  It;s still wrong, to whomever thinks it's wrong, for whatever reason or non-reason they think it's wrong?  What's the problem?  

Now you might say, well, what if you drew a line and you both agreed where the line should start and stop, all of a sudden, the line exists in reality. Now we are talking. However, the line that you and i draw has no reference to reality. What do i mean by this. Well, if  you and i drew a line, it is just something we both made up from our heads and we are playing according to this construct.

The line doesn't exist in reality any more than it did before just because you agreed on it.  You simply agreed to conform to a particular delusion together (hey,. just like christers..ish).  

This is also how subjective moral theorists arrive at moral agreement.  

It is no different to you and i saying, lets pretend you and i are batman and superman. We can act as if we are batman and superman, but in reality we are not. We are just living according to some delusion that we made up. A mental construct.

If acting like a moral agent is not being a moral agent...then what is?  

Thats all morality is if you want to say if OM does not exist, but want to live as if moral rights and wrongs exist.

Moral rights and moral wrongs exist in both objective -and- subjective moral views.  

If you say morality is subjective, according to me rape is wrong is just another way of saying, i am suffering from a delusion.

You -are- suffering from a delusion, and rape -is- wrong.  What's the problem?