Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm amazed you could compare murder and manslaughter when the intent is the central difference. This is why I'm concerned about your view and definitions of this and always have been.

Is there something less than objective about demonstrable intent?  Your amazement is misplaced, we routinely compare some death x to the standards of both in order to determine which it is from the outset. That's the point of discovery, the point of a trial, the point of it being overseen by a judge, and the point of a jury panel. All of these things exist, ideally, so that we might reach an objectively justifiable charge.

But let me illustrate a specific situation that you are not grasping, perhaps that will shed some light. The sinking ship dilemma I'm referring to (which I first learned about in a sociology class, so maybe it's not commonly known) is a hypothetical wherein there's a ship sinking and only one lifeboat, able to only hold X number of people while the ship contains some number greater than X. One must decide which of those number of folks get on the lifeboat and which ones drown. Yes, you would base the decision upon objective criteria (a doctor is more valuable than a medical student, for instance) but not everyone would reach the same conclusion, even if using the exact same objective fact to justify their decision. You can't simply remove subjectivity from the equation and I don't understand why you would want to do that anyway.

Moral disagreement exists, I can only say this so many times.  No one's removing our necessarily subjective natures from the issue, I told you at the outset that it's pointless to do so.  That doesn't make the moral standard, itself, any less objective.  Nor, in my opinion, is it -impossible- for a subjective agent like ourselves to arrive at an objective conclusion, nor is the nature of the moral agent as a subjective agent an impediment to making objective statements about that agent.  If we used the exact same objective facts about something, and a consistent moral reasoning, we could not help but arrive at the same conclusion. That we do not demonstrably shows that we refer to different moral facts, or a different moral reasoning. You might save a child, and I might save an experienced mariner (or vv). What could account for our disparate decisions?

And what I meant by degrees is, if two situations are extremely similar (please don't make the mistake of one where intent is the difference, that's just silly) then a subjective decision on the application of disciplinary measures is required for both.

Is it, or is an objective assessment regarding the differences and any pursuant moral desert required?  I, obviously, tend towards the latter.  That's -why- we standardize consequences in ethics and law, so that it isn't up to the whim of any particular subjective agent. 

Or even a situation on its own, not needing comparison to another, is still in need of a subjectively determined solution. Simple compensation for whatever was lost or damaged, or some other penalty on top of that? If so, just how severe of a penalty? That's all subjective. Those are the kinds of things you're not going to get a consensus on or be able to say definitively that it's always the correct approach to a given situation.

Is a subjective agent incapable of making an objective determination?  Isn't the purpose of objective standards, or of rigorous application of logic....to overcome whatever bias we may possess as subjective agents?  Simply saying " a person made that assessment therefore it;s subjective " is not only wrong, it's a meaningless distinction.  All assessments made by human beings are made by subjective creatures.  That doesn't make those assessments subjective by fiat.

You call me Khemikal. Is the fact that you call me Khemikal somehow -not- an objective description of who I am, simply for it having been mouthed by yourself, a subjective agent? If that were so, there would be no such thing -as- a fact to begin with, no such thing as an objectively true statement. My wife, however, calls me by a different name (and many here know me by another, lol). The existence of (at least) three different answers for this single question is not indicative of subjectivity, but of competing facts objectively expressed by subjective agents. Everyone who calls me by any name is right, simultaneously (just don't call me late for dinner).