Subjective Morality?

[robvalue]

We do have to agree on what the supposed facts refer to, in the first place. Otherwise we're not even talking about the same thing.

If we're saying there are facts about reality based on what is "good", then we need to agree what we mean by "good", or else we're not talking about the same facts. We can both be correct, about different things. If we're trying to decide what is factually good or not in the first place, then we need to decide what kind of fact we're talking about, and how we will decide.

1) Inherent truths about reality

If this is the claim, then we either determine some scientific method by which we may try to model those truths, or else we just say there’s no way of us knowing. Even if there are such inherent truths, then they surely just mean more than, "X is good, Y is not good". What does "good" mean to reality? Why should anyone care?

2) Truths derived from axioms

This is fine, and all we can do is test for internal consistency or appeal to consequences. The truths are then obviously contingent upon the axioms, and are of no practical use to anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They can’t be universally applied to any other moral/ethical systems. They are all true, within their own systems. You can’t call an axiom factually incorrect. They might be stupid or have no practical use, but they are by definition true within their own system. Axioms may contradict each other of course, and a person may or may not care about that. We can say the system is flawed if we want.

3) Scientific facts

Now we're getting somewhere. If I want to demonstrate that X is good scientifically, I need to know what "good" actually means. This is why agreement is so important. Otherwise, we're studying different things. We could both be correct, but about different subjects.

I was thinking of a similar example to try and demonstrate this. I claim that all the fences around my garden are tall, and I want to prove it scientifically. What is the first thing you would ask?

We all know what tall means, but if we're going to make factual statements, we need a precise definition. Does it mean 6 feet and over? 8 feet and over? Does it mean higher than the average of all fences in the area? Does it mean what 99% people would call tall? If we don’t agree here, then I can say it’s factually talk by one definition, and you can say it isn’t by another, and we’re both correct.

Can we make the meta-definition that all definitions of tall must refer to being 6 feet and over? We could, if we wanted to, but this is still just defining the word further. Anyone who doesn’t agree would come up with different facts, and again, we could both be right. This is the equivalent of trying to shoe-horn the desired definitions of "good" in without doing any science or philosophy, but just appealing to popularity, utility or emotion. For something so vague, it’s the No True Scotsman. Khem seems to want to do this, but you don’t, which is very confusing to me if you’re supporting the same position.