Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Mister Agenda]

[quote=Mister Agenda]
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?

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.

What, you don't think it's a 'properly basic belief'? It's not self-evident to you? Then you're not going to think my morality is actually objective are you? While I believe it's an axiom (self-evident), you think it's an opinion. And your 'properly basic belief' fares no better. 'Properly basic beliefs' and 'axioms' are the same thing. Whatever question you think I'm begging, you begged in advance.

[quote=Mister Agenda]
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.

That is true. My axiom is an 'ought' in the first place, not derived from an 'is'. If you can't see that it's a 'properly basic belief' I can only despair of what kind of morality you're likely to wind up with without it.

[quote=Mister Agenda]
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?

You haven't done something bad in your own eyes. If you've acted on that desire, you've done something bad in my eyes. I don't have to cross the bridge, I'm already there.

Morality being subjective doesn't mean you can't make value judgments. It just acknowledges that your value judgments are subjective. Do you really believe your value judgments aren't subjective?

---

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?

Functional empathy should tell you the difference between how raping a child is wrong and how 1+1=3 is wrong. One is a factoid, the other is an outrage. The real question is: What is wrong with you? In your scenario, you and your friends should be removed from society for the safety of children and to punish you for your crimes. If you don't agree with my moral reasoning, that's not enough to keep you and your friends out of lockup.

And no one should have to explain this to you. The idea of the scenario you suggest makes me want to see the perpetrators harshly punished. Are you trying to say if the scenario turns my feels up to 10, it makes my assessment of the morality of the situation objective?