Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

Why? aesthetics  is purely subjective.

If morality is also subjective, then why treat them differently?

1.Just because two things are subjective does not mean they are the same thing

2. You should treat them differently because there not the same . But if you wanna misrepresent someone else's position by all means

---

Simply defining gods nature with attribute x or y doesn't answer the question it's just you asserting attri1. 

1. By nature they are the same. What i mean by that is, if something is subjective, there is no right/wrong in regards to it.
2. Think about it. Lets pick items which are subjective by nature.
Taste in food, music, drinks, movies, aesthetics, holiday destinations, sports, houses, just to name a few.
There is no right/wrong in regards to these. 
That is, there is no fact to compare it against.

---

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?

Nope.  You're out of questions.  I've answered each of yours without ever getting more than hints of an answer to mine.  Quid pro quo, Clarice.  Quid pro quo

Where did you answer the above question.

---

Let me be clear here I'm a moral realist and I don't believe morality is subjective but I will no abide other positions being misrepresented .

The Op keeps comparing subjective apples and oranges . Morality even if it was subjective can't be compared to a like of fruit .

Divine command theory and divine nature theory are as arbitrary as fuck. You can't take action like charity say it's positive and what maximally great being approves of . That's just you taking your presumed moral beliefs and imposing them on god then  defining it as positive and maximally good. Sorry simply saying he has this attribute and this attribute is this won't cut it.

If something is subjective, then there is no ontological basis to compare ones answer against to deem something right or wrong.

Its not that hard.

---

It is not for me to define, that is why it is called OM. By being OM, it has nothing to do with what i think or how i can define it.

Also, it is not because God says so. It is not his opinion. Rather they derive from his nature.

First you'd have to prove that God exists.  Then you'd have to prove that the morals derive from his nature, and aren't just his opinion.  Good luck!

By admitting certain acts such as child rape for fun are wrong, you are essentially admitting God exists.

You are admitting that moral facts exist. These facts exist regardless of anyones opinion or attitude about them.

Remember moral facts are prescriptions, not descriptions.

Prescriptions or propositions come from minds/intelligence.

---

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?

I would definitely not approve of your hobby and in my view it would be wrong. Indeed society in general views these things as being wrong but it is nor true for all societies at all times. This is why an evolving morality is superior to the ones set down eons ago in harsher societies. Societies were you would send your dughters to be raped rather than offend a male guest. Societies were slavery was A ok.
Morality shifts.
At the moment its shifting for the better. 

Our society accepts being gay as not immoral and that is better we are more tolerant of other faiths or no faiths, better.

A few problems here. Wrong according to what? Your opinion? Thats like you and i playing a game of tennis with no lines on the floor and as soon as the ball lands you scream that it is out. Well, no lines exist on the court then how can it be out? Essentially you are comparing where the ball landed against some imaginary line you created in your head. Exactly the same if you say OM does not exist then say such acts like rape are wrong. Well, you are comparing it against some imaginary line in your head.

Societies? Which societies? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany? North Korea?

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?

Those are objective facts.

Exactly...and it is the ONLY reason why something is right or wrong because you can compare it against it.

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?

Not really you are confusing what is objective and what is subjective.
I think it is morally wrong to condemn homosexuality, that is subjective opinion. If morals were objective everyone would think it immoral to condemn homosexuals, but they don't do they!

How can something be wrong if it is subjective?

[/quote]

---

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.

The difference is, i admit OM exists, you dont. Therefore your claims are are a delusion.

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.

Just shifting the problem here. Is it a fact that humans ought to or is it just a preference?

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.

So something is wrong with me and my friends? That is admitting OM exists.


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?

Why should we?

---

@OP

Forgive me as I don't have a complete understanding of the Abrahamic religions, let alone Christianity, but I don't understand how you can get to objective morality even with God. Dude regularly calls for acts of genocide or commits what we would consider heinous acts all the time. Then it turns around and commands us not to kill? How is that not subjective? He could command anything and it would be considered morally right. Before you start claiming OT OT, why does that make a difference? Guy's a flip flopper.

Is genocide wrong?