Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

I see this quite a bit in response to the discussion of objective morality.  I don't believe that it is a good argument for a morality that is subjective.  This argument (if correct) would also mean that science and our understanding of the universe is also subjective. Would you make the same comparison between the ancient Assyrians and the modern Japanese and come to the same conclusion in regards to their scientific beliefs?  This clearly not the case, because the universe doesn't change, based on the subject.  It is a difference between how or what we know, and what is the nature of the topic being discussed (epistemology vs ontology).  Knowledge by it's nature is necessarily subjective.  What you know, is not what I know (it is based on us as individuals). That which is objective however is independent of our knowledge of it. Normally from scholars what I see being discussed is the ontology of morality, not it's epistemology or even evolution.  In fact, when one compares the moral principles or practices of a person or culture, they are necessarily weighing it against a standard which is outside of that culture or subject.

I would disagree that equating objective with universal is a mistake (although I'm open to argument on this).  If it is objective, then by definition it is independent of the subject or universal among subjects.  This is regardless of their belief of the topic, and whether it is correct or wrong.  I would agree, that objective does not mean absolute.  The boiling point of water at a given altitude and pressure is objective and universal regardless of the person or even their mistake in measuring it.  However I specify the pressure, because the boiling point of water is not absolute, but relative pressure.  Someone boiling water at sea level is going to get a different result then someone doing the same in Denver.  However not because it is based on the subject observing or anything within them.

I find that most who argue for moral subjectivity either don't understand the argument (that it is talking about ontology and not epistemology).  Or that they are inconsistent between their belief in moral subjectivity and their actions.  It is quite difficult for us to act as if morality is subjective.   Here is and article about Seven Things you cannot do as a Moral Relativist  I might quip a little over the authors choice to call it relativism vs subjectivism (as I already discussed that objective does not equate to absolute).  However I think his reasoning is sound, with this small change, and I believe that it is the meaning that the author intended to convey.  Normally, when someone insists that morality is subjective, I ask what in the subject; morality is based on?  In application, I find that almost no one is a moral subjectivist.  And if there is someone who applied this belief consistently, most would think that there is something wrong with them.

That seems an enormous strawman to me.
We arent claiming that we apply the morals subjectively, but that we derive them that way as individuals and as societies. Once settled upon, we tend to apply them uniformly, with a great deal going onto any changes, though naturally changes do happen.

That entire piece relies on the notion that people who are moral relatavists wish to apply their morals relatively, or subjectively if you will. That is not at all what a person who says morals are subjective is claiming.

I don't think that it what the author is trying to convey.  He is working through logically what it entails if morality is subjective by nature (ontologically)  Most people and societies do not behave in this way.  If morals are subjective, then wouldn't it follow that you treat them on a per subject basis?  It is inconsistent to say that they are subjective, but then act as if they are objective. 

Expanding them to a societal agreement or cultural norm, doesn't help either.  You are just shifting the basis for the moral comparison to a larger group which comes to an agreement.  And it would be equally incorrect to compare one group to another in this case, as they do not share a common basis for their morality.  In this case, you cannot make any claim about justice or rights which countermand the group upon which they are based. 

Now the one thing that I have found in these conversations, is that a number of people misunderstand what is being talked about by saying "subjective".  It is not saying that I think that X is immoral here are the reasons why.  This has to do with how we know (epistemology).  It is saying that X is immoral regardless of the person.  That the basis or standard for what is moral or immoral is independent of the person (culture or time).  That the morality of the action in question doesn't change based on the individual (or societies) particular view, taste, or preference for that action.  Do you think that something becomes moral or immoral, because a person or society accepts or rejects it?   Or was it moral or immoral all along, and was discovered or realized by that person or society?