Subjective Morality?

[Angrboda]

Wrong.  I do not claim that it's objectively wrong.  I claim that it may have an objective basis.  That incurs no burden of proof.  You do, however, claim that it is not objective.  That does incur a burden of proof.

You are free to prove or not bother to prove anything you want.  If you believe there are objective moral facts, and you can see that I do not, then you can go ahead and show one for consideration, and explain why any moral idea might be said to be correct (rather than, say, very popular in a given culture).

If you don't want to do that, then I will happily go along my way still holding the opinion that all value judgments are necessarily subjective, including judgments about what metrics to consider when forming ideas about how to behave.

You believe in the subjectivity of morals without being able to provide any justification for your belief, and when challenged to support your belief, you say that you're simply going to go on believing regardless of whether you can provide evidence for your belief, and you have the gall to liken me to someone holding a religious belief on faith alone? You're a joke, benny. Provide justification for your belief, or you're the one behaving like a religious nutjob who believes things without reason based on blind faith. So unless I believe what you want me to believe, and jump through the hoops you want me to jump through, regardless of whether they are relevant, you're going to consider me the irrational one? You're an idiot, benny. A clueless, fucking, idiot.

Opinions about the nature of reality have varied over time, too.  Opinions about the nature of reality are still the most variable of facts in existence.  Ask a Muslim, a Buddhist, and an atheist about where we go after we die and you'll get three different answers. Are you suggesting that therefore there is no objective reality?  Opinions about mathematical truths have varied over time as well.  Not about 2+ 2, but about the axiom of choice, the question of whether math and logic are explicable in terms of the one or the other, and so on.  In morality, some basic facts like fairness is good haven't varied at all over time, so you're simply cherry picking your facts in order to support your conclusion.  Even if that were not the case, at best this argument would show that moral facts are not like mathematical facts or facts about apples.  That's a proof by analogy which only follows if we have reason to expect morals to be analogous to mathematical facts or cat facts in the way you suggest.  Ultimately it's a very weak and inconclusive argument.  Additionally, there are explanations for why morals have varied over time.  Your ignorance of them is just that.  Ultimately this is an argument that because certain epistemological facts hold, then certain ontological facts follow, and that's simply a non sequitur.

I expect that if something is objective, it may be observed to be so.  If there are facts which are moral in nature, and the morality of which is not dependent on the feelings and ideas of a subjective agent, then bring a few forward, and we can talk about them.

If you can't demonstrate that objective moral facts even exist, then we might as well be talking about magical space monkeys or Zeus' thunderous cock or something.

You can expect anything you like, whether those expectations matter or not is something else. You privilege certain referents as facts because they are experienced phenomenologically in a different way than moral facts, something which has already been pointed out to you does not prove anything. You can't demonstrate that morals are predicated on feelings, so you can't demonstrate that any better than you can demonstrate Zeus' cock, the difference is that you believe that morals being predicated upon feelings is an objective fact, one which happens to fail all the tests for an objective fact that you place upon the necessity of moral facts being objective, yet suddenly those things don't matter. You're just engaged in special pleading. You can't demonstrate that "observed" referents are any more or less objective than moral facts, you simply assume they are, without reason, in the one, and assume, again without reason, that they aren't in the second.

My opinion doesn't depend on anybody getting anything right.  What makes you think that physical realist facts, or mathematical realist facts, or any other type of fact you can name are not in the same boat?  I don't know exactly what you mean by faith here.  It seems like you're simply trying to make an analogy between moral realism and something that you consider bad.  That doesn't lead to the conclusion that moral realism is wrong, so what's the point?

If there are real moral truths, then we have two choices: demonstrate at least one, and show it to be so, or have faith that somewhere out there is some kind of real truth, even though we have no direct gnostic access to it.  In the latter case, this is only a couple sprinkles of holy water from a religious position.

Or we can be agnostic as to whether or not morals are objective or subjective. As already noted, the inability to produce a moral that satisfies you as to its objectivity doesn't lead to any conclusion, as that is an argument from ignorance. However, belief that morals are predicated on feelings and subjective, as you do, without any actual ability to demonstrate that it is, is itself just a sprinkle of holy water away from a religious position. You're an idiot, benny. You accuse me, falsely, of the very thing that you yourself are guilty of, and think that I should be ashamed because you're a moron and a hypocrite. Sorry Huggy, I mean, benny, I'm not.