Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

Because we can't have the subjective opinion that it's important to condemn such acts?

It essentially means nothing. If OM does not exist, then you are just expressing your preference, just like 1 person expresses their preference for blondes over brunette or NFL over golf. 
You are not making a statement with an intent for it to be a fact are you? So who really cares.
Or are you?

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

I subjectively feel more strongly about murder preferences than food preferences.

Who cares. If OM does not exist, then who cares if you like pizza or burgers or the other way around. Thats all it really means.

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

Yes, my subjective morality obligates me to do so.

But if OM does not exist, it cannot be wrong. Just undesirable. 

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

Yeah, the difference between those two things, that seems to be a tough one for Christians unless they have a God commanding them not to do it...which he doesn't, btw.

?????

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

How did you jump from morality being subjective to it being nonexistent?

Because if something is subjective, it cannot be wrong. Just undesirable as best.

Taste in movies is subjective. If i liked a movie you dont, am i wrong for liking that movie?

Is that what you believe?

Of course not, and I don't believe that you really think we do.

Personally, I believe in an objective basis for morality given an axiom like 'what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad', but if you can't accept that axiom, we can't agree on a basis for morality. Moral reasoning involves logic, and logic is grounded in axioms. We can reach the same conclusions with different axioms, but the process of getting to those conclusions will be different, and that we'll reach the same ones is not a given.


ISIS is using a different axiom as the basis for their moral reasoning than I do. Is your axiom more like theirs or more like mine? I can accept mine as a brute fact of our nature as a reasoning social species. If you want to tack a 'because God' onto it, we can still be on the same page in our moral conclusions.

But this just begs the question. You are talking about prudence or prudential value here. Let me give an example.

If you want to be fit and healthy, then you ought to eat fruit, veges, exercise, dont smoke, drink etc etc. However is it a fact that you ought to be fit and healthy? If you are not fit and healthy have you done something wrong? No.

All you have done is begged the question or assumed the end goal ("what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad'") and described such as acts that dont achieve these as being bad or wrong.

These things that you mentioned "what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad' are just preferences, desires. They are not facts that humans OUGHT to achieve or do. You cannot derive an ought from an IS.

Also, you have made a value judgements,ie good and bad. Why are these things good or bad? Sure they maybe desirable, but how do you cross the bridge and say they are good?

If i want to maximise sufferring and eliminate the human species, have i done something bad?

---

Empathy - "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."

How does empathy make such moral acts right or wrong? Just because you share or understand another's feeling, doesnr make something right or wrong.

Okay, so apparently "empathy" would not be your answer to my question regarding how it is you think you obtained the correct objective morality.  But do you mean to answer my question?  You claim to be in possession of the one and only correct objective morality.  I've asked you how you arrived at that. On what authority do you make such a claim?

Let me ask you

If i told you me and my friends have been raping and torturing a child for fun for the past 6 months, have we been doing something wrong? Like if i say 1+1=3 wrong? LIke if i say the earth is flat wrong? or if i say the sun rotates around the earth wrong?

Or do you only find me and my friends acts distasteful or undesirable....like if we told you we have been eating a fruit you really hate?

This should give you an idea where i am coming from?