Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

But if OM doesnt exist, then as in the tennis example, they are just delusions in our heads.

Firstly,  learn to fucking quote.  Just do it.  Sometime between now and when you next post, because this shit is a nightmare.  Consider it a moral duty, referent to an objective morality, if that helps.

The tennis example isn't a moral example, there is no moral component to it, and it doesn't matter whether or not it's delusional in whatever sense you mean that.  It's completely uninformative...and even if we strech it as far as credulity wiull allow it exposes no problem or issue with morality, objective or subjective.  Two people may refer to two disparate sets of rules for tennis in their heads..or they may refer to two disparate sets of rules for tennis in some book they have.  

If moral facts dont exist, then it is just like playing with no lines. Saying OM doesnt exist, but then claiming moral rights wrongs is admitting that we are all just suffering from a delusion, like the tennis game i used above in the back street.

No one's playing any game, hopefully, with their moral concepts.  It's pretty serious stuff.  Moral objectivists have their lines, moral subjectivists have their lines.  We all have our lines.  

Of course it does...if no objective facts exist, then it is just something you made up. A man made construct.

Why would it matter if it were?  If the notion that rape is wrong was entirely man made and referred to nothing other than people thinking that rape was wrong..would it be any more or less wrong?  Would it be any more or less anyone's opinion that rape was wrong?  No, because it -doesn't- matter.  

According to you, a Theist is someone who is delusional because according to you, God does not exist and the Theist is imagining God exists  and is acting according to it.

Sure, no point in wasting ink trying to communicate why -I- think you're delusional, because it doesn't matter to our discussion.  If ghosts aren't telling you what's right and wrong, you still think that some act x is wrong.  It doesn't actually matter whether or not ghosts are telling you that.  

Similarly, if it's.."just like, a subjectivists opinion..man," that some act is wrong....it's still their opinion that some x is wrong.  You don't really have to agree with them (and vv) as to why it's wrong, but you both agree that it is.  This is how objective and subjective moral theorists can come to moral agreement. It;s how believers and non-believers can come to moral agreement. There's alot of moral overlap between all four groups, and between the moral statements of all four groups.

Well, if OM does not exist, and then saying rape is wrong means you are no different to the Theist. It is just a mental construct you made in your head. It doesnt exist in reality and you act according to this delusion the same as the Theist does.

Tu qoque...god you believers will settle for the silliest shit.  Mental constructs do exist in reality.  Calling something a mental construct does nothing to establish that it doesn't exist.  Their opinion is still their opinion even if it's just an opinion and...obviously, their opinion exists.  

Ok, so you believe moral facts exist? If this is the case, we can stop arguing here and we can turn our attention to the grounding of these moral facts which will differ between you and i.

I do, I told you that at the outset.  I would probably stop arguing with you if you stopped saying silly shit.

It is made up if it doesnt exist in reality, like you and i pretending we are batman superman.

Aren;t you and I pretending to be batman and superman..in reality?  Things being made up, doesn;t mean that they don;t exist..calling them made up explicitly denotes that they do exist..as something somebody "made up".  

This doesnt make sense.

I don't think you have a firm grasp on sense, so it's unsurprising to me that you would think that.  Your opinion is wrong, and made up..but it exists, in reality, in you.  

The same way as when i said the ball is out when the ball was hit even though there is no line?

Then you believe that the ball is out - there is a line, to you.  What's the problem?  
 

The same way as i really though the ball is out?

Probably not, since moral subjectivists will refer to a long list of reasons why they think "the ball is out" or why they think the line is where it is..but yeah, sure..fundamentally the same way.  This is equally true of moral objectivists like yourself or myself.  

According to who or what am i wrong?Consider this.

I think the person who needs to start doing a little considering might be you.............

I say the sun rotates around the earth, am i right or wrong? You say wrong. Tell me why i am wrong. Is it just or opinion or are you appealing to something outside your opinion?

Factually or logically wrong.

I say rape is right, you say its wrong.  Tell me why i am wrong. Is it just or opinion or are you appealing to something outside your opinion?

You mean..morally wrong?

See...-this- is why you are wrong...you literally cannot be right - your argument is fallacious.   

We cannot be both right as this would violate one of the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

That's true, we can't both be right according to the same metrics simultaneously in contradiction to each other.  Not sure why it matters...since we're not both right, in this case.  I'm right, and you're wrong...so?

So you admit if something is subjective you cannot put a right or wrong against it?

Read that entire exchange again...and tell me where you began to believe that anything I said above is accurately described by you..in that last line?  Stop.

To people cannot be both right with opposing views.

-in relation to a shared set of metrics..this is true, again, agreed...but again..it doesn't matter...sine we're not both right.  

So child rape is neither is right or wrong?

If you have to ask you're no more a moral agent than a duck, again.

Just pointing out logical conclusion of it.

A logic free logical conclusion.  That's a novel idea.  I think you just made it up, in your head, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Law of non contradiction say it cannot be.

You seem to think that moral subjectivity ha a problem with the law of non-contradiction..it doesn't.  A moral subjectivist doesn;t think that some act is both right and wrong simultaneously.  Go, ask them.  Ask any of these moral subjectivists if they think that rape is both right and wrong?  That would probably yield more insight than frothing at the mouth like a common christer loon, repeatedly insisting that they -must- believe that.  

I am sorry, but right or wrong only exist in relation to facts.

-and it's a fact that taken 1 and 2 sucked...they sucked so hard, they hit the floor of suck, where all examples of suckiness are equally sucky.  Therefore one -cannot- be suckier than the other...there's no room left at the bottom.

Is that all now? You resort to mockery?

---

You deserve every bit of it...and probably more.  See...look..a moral judgement..and I just made up up, with my head..as a human being...and it even exists!

I'm a never-ending fountain of derision for people like yourself. Just like jesus, no matter how much I give, I've always got more for the next guy.