Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

---

I don't think that believing in a subjective morality, means that one endorses atrocities.  I don't think they have an external basis, in which to criticize, or say that others are right or wrong.  And I see your point, "equal" was probably a poor choice of words on my part.  "Indifferent" perhaps would be a better choice, as there is not a common basis for comparison.  I apologize, if I came off as attempting to state what a moral relativist believes.  Rather what I meant is that there is a disconnect, between there moral relativism, and their actions or behavior; which doesn't follow from that position.

---

No external basis is required.  That's kind of the point of calling some x subjective assessments.

What's your basis, and is it actually external?  How much thought have you given this?

Their actions most likely follow from what they subjectively describe to be right and wrong.  There's no disconnect.  There is -no- functional difference between an objective and a subjective morality.  Person A thinks x is subjectively wrong and they do y.  Person b thinks x is objectively wrong....and they do...wait for it.......y.

I think that it is an interesting question, and I have given it some thought.  

I don't think that you get to make a distinction without a difference here.   For instance;  if morality is subjective, then when you are telling me, that something is  immoral, you are not really giving me information about the action in question, but simply giving information about yourself.  For that is what it is based on (the subject).  Similarly, someone who disagrees, and calls it moral, is not contradicting you; as you do not share a common basis for such a comparison. Both can be equally true and valid (one is no more right or wrong than the other) outside of the subject.  What is true for you, may not be true for me, and what is true for you today, may not be tomorrow (morally speaking). What is moral, is shaped by something in the subject, not the action in question.

On the other hand, if it is objective, then it is independent of the subject, their thoughts, tastes, or preferences do not effect the morality of the action (or whatever it is that subjectivist claim is the basis I do not know). Because Bob decides that abusing his wife is a good stress relief, and justifies, that it helps him with his work to better mankind, cannot make it moral. If the society that Bob is in, sees the advancements Bob is making towards a better well being for everyone, and decides that the abuse is ok, it cannot make it moral. This is because, the basis for what makes it moral or not; is external to and not connected to any person or groups idea of morality. A view may be more moral or less, or completely incorrect regarding morality in an objective sense. Subjectively it cannot really be incorrect, other than perhaps if someone is lying about a description of themselves. There is nothing else to compare it to, other than that subject in particular. A different person has a different basis. If morality is objective, then opposing answers contradict, and both of them cannot be true. Something cannot be both immoral and moral at the same time, in the same way. There is an external standard of what is moral, which can be compared to, it is independent of the person; which gives a real justice, and real rights. With subjectivity, you do not have this.

The question isn't functionally, when both agree, but when they do not. How do you treat them then?

---

I don't think that believing in a subjective morality, means that one endorses atrocities.  I don't think they have an external basis, in which to criticize, or say that others are right or wrong.  And I see your point, "equal" was probably a poor choice of words on my part.  "Indifferent" perhaps would be a better choice, as there is not a common basis for comparison.  I apologize, if I came off as attempting to state what a moral relativist believes.  Rather what I meant is that there is a disconnect, between there moral relativism, and their actions or behavior; which doesn't follow from that position.

Moral relativism is a bit of a different kettle of fish than moral subjectivism. Relativism is about lack of absolutes. There is no absolute standard of what constitutes 'long' for instance. It's no barrier to determining whether one piece of string is longer than another...relativism is about making comparisons, and a relativist can certainly claim that Quakers are better than Nazis, they just can't claim it's not possible to be better than a Quaker or worse than a Nazi. Moral relativism says that actions are morally better or worse depending on the agents and circumstances and necessarily involves a moral judgment about what's better or worse. Moral relativism is a position that can be held simultaneously with a belief in objective morality...in which case it just means that objective morality is complicated and fluid.

Doh!!  You caught me.  Apparently at a point, I made the mistake of starting to say relative instead when I meant subjective.   I apologize.

I do think that your example is good though for showing how what is objective can be relative.   Although it may be argued, that while the word "longer" is relative, it is a reference to length which is not.   Either way, it is objective.  And which one is truly longer, is not dependent on what anyone believes about it.  Ever see those optical illusions, where they try to trick you into guessing the wrong line as longer?  But thanks for catching my screw up.