Subjective Morality?

[brewer]

Hmm. You'll have to cut me some slack, I can't formally do formal explanations. Here goes:

By describing the sun and it's state, I meant to remind of the inherent nature of objective events. I then argue this same inherent nature of objective events would include some of the traits/inconsistencies you pointed out earlier. Aka, the inconsistencies you describe are not traits of objective morality specifically, but of the idea of an objective thing in general.
By describing the sun specifically, I meant to show that your points were really arguing against the objective existence of a sun as well as objective morality. I do not relate the sun and morality in any way, except by their supposed objectiveness.

Similarly, linear transformations do not relate to objective morality directly. They are, again, pointing at the inherent nature of an objective event, which objective morality would also have should it exist.

What exactly fails here? Could you be more specific?

Are you saying that one NAMBLA (?) person would change the nature of a moral law from objective to subjective, or merely prove that it was never objective to begin with? If the former: that's not how I understand objectivity to work; if the latter, the following questions arise:

If moral laws are split between subjective/objective, do you hold that at least one of the objective laws, upon violation, could not be possibly held up by a violator as immoral itself (and therefore subjective)? If so, cool, if you have any specific examples of such a law, please share. If not, isn't that the same as entirely subjective morality, since you're essentially just waiting for the nutcases to get through everything?

So, just to be clear, you pronounce humans and their actions as either good or not good, independently of what they think about themselves and their actions? And, no matter how hard your moral judgement, you would accept the crowd's moral legislation instead?
Would you be comfortable to act on a conviction made by yourself? By the crowd?

My position on killing: moral under certain circumstances and certain mindset, immoral under most. 

It appears that you and I have different definitions of "objective" when discussing morality. I'm not going to play the "what is objective" game with you. 

Here:ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Get it? 

The NAMBLA person: I'm saying that the NAMBLA person would say that in a society of NAMBLA individuals that pedophilia is moral. You and I would say it's not. We've taken our opinion, NAMBLA has taken theirs. Therefore subjective, not objective. 

Stop interchanging "law(s)" with "moral(s)". They are not necessarily the same and I'm not going to discuss ramifications of laws and their application. That's another discussion. 

Human actions can be good, not good, indifferent, batshit crazy, .................... It all depends on the person(s) making the judgement. The coprophagiac says it's good to eat shit. What do you say? Oops, two opinions, tada, subjective, not objective. 

About the "you would accept the crowd's moral legislation", tell me your position on abortion. Seems to me that US society is split on it's morality. Damn, subjective again. 

And thank's for admitting that killing is subjectively moral based on set and setting. 

You might try reading this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

[RoadRunner79]

... so how do you evaluate the world/others/actions with a subjective morality?

I spot a chance to chime in with my pet peeve...

A lot of times when people say "objective" they seem to mean "universal and eternal." As if any objective judgment will be the same always and forever. But I don't think that's what "objective" means. 

Say for example I assemble a panel of nutritionists to help me plan my diet. They can -- objectively -- figure out what's healthiest for me to eat. But that doesn't mean that it's best for absolutely everyone. 

And if new research shows that, contrary to prior theories, chocolate TimTams are in fact the healthiest thing you can eat, then the same nutritionists would have to adjust their objective evaluation to take account of these new findings. (I mention this because I am conducting a long-term experiment on the benefits of chocolate TimTams.) 

I think that the nutritionists' decisions will be objective if they are disinterested and unselfish. But they may nonetheless change their minds later, and may even disagree in the present.

Now if people want to debate the (perhaps religious) belief in a universal and eternal set of moral laws, that would be a different subject.

This is actually an example of healthy eating being objective. It doesn’t matter what the nutritionist thought, and what is healthy didn’t change because of it. This is not using the terms like talking about a reporter objectively covering a story, giving just the facts, and minimizing their feelings on the matter.

What is/was healthy remained the same. It’s not based on the people who are studying it, where right or wrong, or having had all the info, or where biased by their feelings. If it was subjective, they would be looking into themselves, and not outside of themselves.

---

Hmm. You'll have to cut me some slack, I can't formally do formal explanations. Here goes:

By describing the sun and it's state, I meant to remind of the inherent nature of objective events. I then argue this same inherent nature of objective events would include some of the traits/inconsistencies you pointed out earlier. Aka, the inconsistencies you describe are not traits of objective morality specifically, but of the idea of an objective thing in general.
By describing the sun specifically, I meant to show that your points were really arguing against the objective existence of a sun as well as objective morality. I do not relate the sun and morality in any way, except by their supposed objectiveness.

Similarly, linear transformations do not relate to objective morality directly. They are, again, pointing at the inherent nature of an objective event, which objective morality would also have should it exist.

What exactly fails here? Could you be more specific?

Are you saying that one NAMBLA (?) person would change the nature of a moral law from objective to subjective, or merely prove that it was never objective to begin with? If the former: that's not how I understand objectivity to work; if the latter, the following questions arise:

If moral laws are split between subjective/objective, do you hold that at least one of the objective laws, upon violation, could not be possibly held up by a violator as immoral itself (and therefore subjective)? If so, cool, if you have any specific examples of such a law, please share. If not, isn't that the same as entirely subjective morality, since you're essentially just waiting for the nutcases to get through everything?

So, just to be clear, you pronounce humans and their actions as either good or not good, independently of what they think about themselves and their actions? And, no matter how hard your moral judgement, you would accept the crowd's moral legislation instead?
Would you be comfortable to act on a conviction made by yourself? By the crowd?

My position on killing: moral under certain circumstances and certain mindset, immoral under most. 

It appears that you and I have different definitions of "objective" when discussing morality. I'm not going to play the "what is objective" game with you. 

Here:ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Get it? 

The NAMBLA person: I'm saying that the NAMBLA person would say that in a society of NAMBLA individuals that pedophilia is moral. You and I would say it's not. We've taken our opinion, NAMBLA has taken theirs. Therefore subjective, not objective. 

Stop interchanging "law(s)" with "moral(s)". They are not necessarily the same and I'm not going to discuss ramifications of laws and their application. That's another discussion. 

Human actions can be good, not good, indifferent, batshit crazy, .................... It all depends on the person(s) making the judgement. The coprophagiac says it's good to eat shit. What do you say? Oops, two opinions, tada, subjective, not objective. 

About the "you would accept the crowd's moral legislation", tell me your position on abortion. Seems to me that US society is split on it's morality. Damn, subjective again. 

And thank's for admitting that killing is subjectively moral based on set and setting. 

You might try reading this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

There is another definition or meaning of objective, used in philosophy, as I have been describing and have defined a number of times recently. You are talking about a different definition, and therefore you examples and rebuttals don’t really argue against the arguments here. Disagreement doesn’t mean that morality is subjective. Gaining understanding, or thinking that are closer to being moral than before does.

[brewer]

There is another definition or meaning of objective, used in philosophy, as I have been describing and have defined a number of times recently. You are talking about a different definition, and therefore you examples and rebuttals don’t really argue against the arguments here. Disagreement doesn’t mean that morality is subjective. Gaining understanding, or thinking that are closer to being moral than before does.

Fine, give me the philosophical definition of objective, or better yet objective as applied to morality. Sorry, I tend to skip over your posts. You can hardly blame me. 

If it's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

then we are discussing the same thing.

[mfigurski80]

Hmm. You'll have to cut me some slack, I can't formally do formal explanations. Here goes:

By describing the sun and it's state, I meant to remind of the inherent nature of objective events. I then argue this same inherent nature of objective events would include some of the traits/inconsistencies you pointed out earlier. Aka, the inconsistencies you describe are not traits of objective morality specifically, but of the idea of an objective thing in general.
By describing the sun specifically, I meant to show that your points were really arguing against the objective existence of a sun as well as objective morality. I do not relate the sun and morality in any way, except by their supposed objectiveness.

Similarly, linear transformations do not relate to objective morality directly. They are, again, pointing at the inherent nature of an objective event, which objective morality would also have should it exist.

What exactly fails here? Could you be more specific?

Are you saying that one NAMBLA (?) person would change the nature of a moral law from objective to subjective, or merely prove that it was never objective to begin with? If the former: that's not how I understand objectivity to work; if the latter, the following questions arise:

If moral laws are split between subjective/objective, do you hold that at least one of the objective laws, upon violation, could not be possibly held up by a violator as immoral itself (and therefore subjective)? If so, cool, if you have any specific examples of such a law, please share. If not, isn't that the same as entirely subjective morality, since you're essentially just waiting for the nutcases to get through everything?

So, just to be clear, you pronounce humans and their actions as either good or not good, independently of what they think about themselves and their actions? And, no matter how hard your moral judgement, you would accept the crowd's moral legislation instead?
Would you be comfortable to act on a conviction made by yourself? By the crowd?

My position on killing: moral under certain circumstances and certain mindset, immoral under most. 

It appears that you and I have different definitions of "objective" when discussing morality. I'm not going to play the "what is objective" game with you. 

Here:ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Get it? 

The NAMBLA person: I'm saying that the NAMBLA person would say that in a society of NAMBLA individuals that pedophilia is moral. You and I would say it's not. We've taken our opinion, NAMBLA has taken theirs. Therefore subjective, not objective. 

Stop interchanging "law(s)" with "moral(s)". They are not necessarily the same and I'm not going to discuss ramifications of laws and their application. That's another discussion. 

Human actions can be good, not good, indifferent, batshit crazy, .................... It all depends on the person(s) making the judgement. The coprophagiac says it's good to eat shit. What do you say? Oops, two opinions, tada, subjective, not objective. 

About the "you would accept the crowd's moral legislation", tell me your position on abortion. Seems to me that US society is split on it's morality. Damn, subjective again. 

And thank's for admitting that killing is subjectively moral based on set and setting. 

You might try reading this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

You're using the everyday definition... here's a more rigorous take from apologetics.net: "In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception" (http://www.apologetics.net/post/What-is-objective-morality.aspx)
Main difference here is that it's not only not influenced by personal feelings, but has a truth value absolutely separate from perception.

Also, a point I have repeated, explained, and re-explained: Multiple differing opinions do not prove subjectivity
I shall provide the example: Claudius Ptolemaeus is of the opinion that the sun orbits the earth. You and I are presumably of the opinion that the earth orbits around the sun. We have 2 different opinions, therefore: by your argument, the solar system is subjective and so existing only in relation to one's perception. Yet, the heliocentric model is objective, as it exists independently of anyone's perception. To argue otherwise is to doubt reality itself.
Therefore, differing opinions are not enough to demonstrate subjectivity
Therefore, by showing that opinions differ on morality, you did not demonstrate morality to be subjective. 

Also, I did not admit to subjective morality by my position on killing: I hold that position to be true apart from anyone's perception. My position can be as specific and situational as it wants, it will always be true regardless of perception or other effects. Just because morality isn't simple doesn't mean you get to call it subjective.
Note, I am not trying to defend my position here, just demonstrating how I treat my positions.

Will save the article tho, it seems like a good Hume summary. Thank you.

---

Yes, but this doesn't really support a subjective morality -- change in moral interpretation can happen under objective morality as well.
In fact, the very idea that people argue over morals -- you mentioned the gay transformation --  suggest that they think it meaningful to argue over such morals, aka, that people recognize their own morality as better than another and are capable of transmitting that to people who don't yet hold that morality. How? Shouldn't a moral interpretation be self sufficient, if subjective? Why would anyone change their morals?

That last question constitutes a meta-morality: why should we be moral?  But that hints at infinite regress-- any reason FOR moral thought instantly becomes part OF moral thought, and then you ask again-- why should I care about that?  And so on.

The answer isn't a moral answer, but an observation: we are a social species, and our social instincts include feelings of justice, empathy, outrage, forgiveness, and so on.  Since morality is an expression of our humanity, then it will attempt to reconcile those various feelings with the environment, social and otherwise.

You could argue that a general moral sense is truly objective, since there are signs of it in animals which lack the capacity for language.  My dogs, for example, show jealousy and offense when I favor one over the other.  If they could speak, they'd tell me how immoral it is that I sometime run with only my beagle, or sometimes let only my Yorkie out of their enclosure to sit on the bed while I read to my son.

As for specific mores, or their collation into moral systems, surely those are a reconciliation among instinct, ideas, and environment.  Since we are evolving technologically, the way in which we have to deal with our instincts, and the way in which we are presented with moral ideas (instantly from around the world, for example, rather than just in the local church) constantly imposes moral questions on us: how do I really FEEL about homosexuality?  About freedom of speech?  About democracy?  About women's equality?  And then, if the way I feel about it isn't approved by my social context, I will decide how I feel about angry forum posts, or losing my job, or being shot in the face.  As the picture emerges (for me), I will pick my battles, surrender others, and attempt to continue living my life.

That's how morality is sorted out, in my view.

Yep. Is/aught gap strikes again.

Anyway.
Thank you, @bennyboy. I think this was actually what I was looking for.

[brewer]

You're using the everyday definition... here's a more rigorous take from apologetics.net: "In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception" (http://www.apologetics.net/post/What-is-objective-morality.aspx)
Main difference here is that it's not only not influenced by personal feelings, but has a truth value absolutely separate from perception.

Also, a point I have repeated, explained, and re-explained: Multiple differing opinions do not prove subjectivity
I shall provide the example: Claudius Ptolemaeus is of the opinion that the sun orbits the earth. You and I are presumably of the opinion that the earth orbits around the sun. We have 2 different opinions, therefore: by your argument, the solar system is subjective and so existing only in relation to one's perception. Yet, the heliocentric model is objective, as it exists independently of anyone's perception. To argue otherwise is to doubt reality itself.
Therefore, differing opinions are not enough to demonstrate subjectivity
Therefore, by showing that opinions differ on morality, you did not demonstrate morality to be subjective. 

Also, I did not admit to subjective morality by my position on killing: I hold that position to be true apart from anyone's perception. My position can be as specific and situational as it wants, it will always be true regardless of perception or other effects. Just because morality isn't simple doesn't mean you get to call it subjective.
Note, I am not trying to defend my position here, just demonstrating how I treat my positions.

Will save the article tho, it seems like a good Hume summary. Thank you.

We are discussing morals, not scientific facts where there is a definite correct and incorrect position/determination. Differing opinions with regard to a moral statement makes that statement subjective. 

Apologetics huh. Thought you might be in that herd, so not as "irrelevant" as your "Religious Views" would indicate. OK, give me a precise and narrowly defined example of a "truth value absolutely separate from perception" that applies to morals. Don't give more science or math gibberish.  

Re killing: ya you did. To paraphrase sometimes killing is OK, sometimes not, therefore subjective.

[mfigurski80]

You're using the everyday definition... here's a more rigorous take from apologetics.net: "In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception" (http://www.apologetics.net/post/What-is-objective-morality.aspx)
Main difference here is that it's not only not influenced by personal feelings, but has a truth value absolutely separate from perception.

Also, a point I have repeated, explained, and re-explained: Multiple differing opinions do not prove subjectivity
I shall provide the example: Claudius Ptolemaeus is of the opinion that the sun orbits the earth. You and I are presumably of the opinion that the earth orbits around the sun. We have 2 different opinions, therefore: by your argument, the solar system is subjective and so existing only in relation to one's perception. Yet, the heliocentric model is objective, as it exists independently of anyone's perception. To argue otherwise is to doubt reality itself.
Therefore, differing opinions are not enough to demonstrate subjectivity
Therefore, by showing that opinions differ on morality, you did not demonstrate morality to be subjective. 

Also, I did not admit to subjective morality by my position on killing: I hold that position to be true apart from anyone's perception. My position can be as specific and situational as it wants, it will always be true regardless of perception or other effects. Just because morality isn't simple doesn't mean you get to call it subjective.
Note, I am not trying to defend my position here, just demonstrating how I treat my positions.

Will save the article tho, it seems like a good Hume summary. Thank you.

We are discussing morals, not scientific facts where there is a definite correct and incorrect position/determination.

Apologetics huh. Thought you might be in that herd, so not as irrelavent as your

Oh. The article. Very well:
"The [objective] object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. " (https://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/)

Honestly, I just google 'objectivism philosophical definition', and this one had the cleanest description, but I'm glad it did turn out to be apologetic; it seems to demonstrate prejudice that you seem to have against theist thought. As an atheist, I would image you believe any rationality is a step in the right direction, although I understand you may have reservations against using pieces of apologetic thought in a secular conversation.
I hope you realize how much you depend on ideas religious people had though... even if delusional about some things, theists can still bring about productive science. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists



In my opinion, truth is truth no matter who utters it. But maybe thats just my objectivism talking.


EDIT:

"Differing opinions with regard to a moral statement makes that statement subjective"
No it doesn't. Given both/either of the philosophical definitions I have provided, an objective morality would be absolutely plausible should there be different opinions about it.
Objective morality (hypothetically, if it exist) has definite correct and incorrect positions, just like science. By definition, that's what the 'objective' in front of 'morality' is for.

"OK, give me a precise and narrowly defined example of a "truth value absolutely separate from perception" that applies to morals."
... After you give me a precise and narrowly defined matrix of the position of every single subatomic particle in your body.
Likewise, objective moral definitions are extremely hard to provide and extremely easy to find minute errors in... this doesn't mean they don't exist.

Re killing: you're mistaken. To paraphrase: killing is okay in certain situations, not okay in others.
Again, since objective morality works like objective science, this would be akin to saying that: some functions have a limit at x=0, others don't. Nothing subjective about it. Very specific though.



Just to reiterate: differing interpretations do not prove subjectivity. Complicated and situationally specific results do not prove subjectivity.
Like, please stop trying to demonstrate either of these, it's logically impossible

[brewer]

We are discussing morals, not scientific facts where there is a definite correct and incorrect position/determination.

Apologetics huh. Thought you might be in that herd, so not as irrelavent as your

Oh. The article. Very well:
"The [objective] object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. " (https://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/)

Honestly, I just google 'objectivism philosophical definition', and this one had the cleanest description, but I'm glad it did turn out to be apologetic; it seems to demonstrate prejudice that you seem to have against theist thought. As an atheist, I would image you believe any rationality is a step in the right direction, although I understand you may have reservations against using pieces of apologetic thought in a secular conversation.
I hope you realize how much you depend on ideas religious people had though... even if delusional about some things, theists can still bring about productive science. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists



In my opinion, truth is truth no matter who utters it or how they got to it. But maybe thats just my objectivism talking.


EDIT:

"Differing opinions with regard to a moral statement makes that statement subjective"
No it doesn't. Given both/either of the philosophical definitions I have provided, an objective morality would be absolutely plausible should there be different opinions about it.
Objective morality (hypothetically, if it exist) has definite correct and incorrect positions, just like science. By definition, that's what the 'objective' in front of 'morality' is for.

"OK, give me a precise and narrowly defined example of a "truth value absolutely separate from perception" that applies to morals."
... After you give me a precise and narrowly defined matrix of the position of every single subatomic particle in your body.
Likewise, objective moral definitions are extremely hard to provide and extremely easy to find minute errors in... this doesn't mean they don't exist.

Re killing: you're mistaken. To paraphrase: killing is okay in certain situations, not okay in others.
Again, since objective morality works like objective science, this would be akin to saying that: some functions have a limit at x=0, others don't. Nothing subjective about it. Very specific though.



Just to reiterate: differing interpretations do not prove subjectivity. Complicated and situationally specific results do not prove subjectivity.
Like, please stop trying to demonstrate either of these, it's logically impossible

What makes you think I care about what religion a scientists is. Does not matter as long as the science is correct and they don't interject religion/god. 

Why are you going back to science with the "subatomic particle" crap. You wanted to discuss moral(s) not science. If there are errors (great or small) in objective morals then they are not objective. 

But now that I understand that you are religious, I'm not surprised that you continue the theist dance/dodge.

[RoadRunner79]

You're using the everyday definition... here's a more rigorous take from apologetics.net: "In philosophy, objective refers to existence apart from perception" (http://www.apologetics.net/post/What-is-objective-morality.aspx)
Main difference here is that it's not only not influenced by personal feelings, but has a truth value absolutely separate from perception.

Also, a point I have repeated, explained, and re-explained: Multiple differing opinions do not prove subjectivity
I shall provide the example: Claudius Ptolemaeus is of the opinion that the sun orbits the earth. You and I are presumably of the opinion that the earth orbits around the sun. We have 2 different opinions, therefore: by your argument, the solar system is subjective and so existing only in relation to one's perception. Yet, the heliocentric model is objective, as it exists independently of anyone's perception. To argue otherwise is to doubt reality itself.
Therefore, differing opinions are not enough to demonstrate subjectivity
Therefore, by showing that opinions differ on morality, you did not demonstrate morality to be subjective. 

Also, I did not admit to subjective morality by my position on killing: I hold that position to be true apart from anyone's perception. My position can be as specific and situational as it wants, it will always be true regardless of perception or other effects. Just because morality isn't simple doesn't mean you get to call it subjective.
Note, I am not trying to defend my position here, just demonstrating how I treat my positions.

Will save the article tho, it seems like a good Hume summary. Thank you.

We are discussing morals, not scientific facts where there is a definite correct and incorrect position/determination. Differing opinions with regard to a moral statement makes that statement subjective. 

Apologetics huh. Thought you might be in that herd, so not as "irrelevant" as your "Religious Views" would indicate. OK, give me a precise and narrowly defined example of a "truth value absolutely separate from perception" that applies to morals. Don't give more science or math gibberish.  

Re killing: ya you did. To paraphrase sometimes killing is OK, sometimes not, therefore subjective.

That would make killing relative, not to be confused with subjective. The question is relative to what? Is it relative to the subject, or to the specifics of the event. Can throwing children into a wood chipper for the fun of it be moral, depending on the person?

Another example I seen recently was the old question, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If something is objective, it is true regardless of opinions or knowledge of it. It exists and is true regardless if everyone agrees, or even if no one believes.

[mfigurski80]

Oh. The article. Very well:
"The [objective] object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. " (https://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/)

Honestly, I just google 'objectivism philosophical definition', and this one had the cleanest description, but I'm glad it did turn out to be apologetic; it seems to demonstrate prejudice that you seem to have against theist thought. As an atheist, I would image you believe any rationality is a step in the right direction, although I understand you may have reservations against using pieces of apologetic thought in a secular conversation.
I hope you realize how much you depend on ideas religious people had though... even if delusional about some things, theists can still bring about productive science. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists



In my opinion, truth is truth no matter who utters it or how they got to it. But maybe thats just my objectivism talking.


EDIT:

"Differing opinions with regard to a moral statement makes that statement subjective"
No it doesn't. Given both/either of the philosophical definitions I have provided, an objective morality would be absolutely plausible should there be different opinions about it.
Objective morality (hypothetically, if it exist) has definite correct and incorrect positions, just like science. By definition, that's what the 'objective' in front of 'morality' is for.

"OK, give me a precise and narrowly defined example of a "truth value absolutely separate from perception" that applies to morals."
... After you give me a precise and narrowly defined matrix of the position of every single subatomic particle in your body.
Likewise, objective moral definitions are extremely hard to provide and extremely easy to find minute errors in... this doesn't mean they don't exist.

Re killing: you're mistaken. To paraphrase: killing is okay in certain situations, not okay in others.
Again, since objective morality works like objective science, this would be akin to saying that: some functions have a limit at x=0, others don't. Nothing subjective about it. Very specific though.



Just to reiterate: differing interpretations do not prove subjectivity. Complicated and situationally specific results do not prove subjectivity.
Like, please stop trying to demonstrate either of these, it's logically impossible

What makes you think I care about what religion a scientists is. Does not matter as long as the science is correct and they don't interject religion/god. 

Why are you going back to science with the "subatomic particle" crap. You wanted to discuss moral(s) not science. If there are errors (great or small) in objective morals then they are not objective. 

But now that I understand that you are religious, I'm not surprised that you continue the theist dance/dodge.

Interesting ad hominem setup there. 

Also, you self-contradict in the span of 3 really short paragraphs:
"what religion a scientists is. Does not matter as long as the science is correct" ... "I'm not surprised that you continue the theist dance/dodge."
In the second phrase, you are clearly dismissing my explanations (which, notice, do not depend on any theistic precepts) based on your perception of my religion. In the first phrase, you claim that religion is irrelevant as long as the explanations are sound. Did you unabashedly lie in the first part, or in the second part?

"Why are you going back to science with the "subatomic particle" crap. You wanted to discuss moral(s) not science. If there are errors (great or small) in objective morals then they are not objective."
Let me re-reiterate. 
Objective (adjective) - "The [objective] object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it".
  NOTE: An objective object presumably exists independent of one's perception of it!!!!!
Therefore:
  An objective sequence of positions of the subatomic particles of your body presumably exist independent of one's perception of it
  An objective morality presumably exists independent of one's perception of it.
Therefore:
  Errors within one's perception of the objective sequence of positions of the subatomic particles of your body do not influence it's objective state and existence.
  Errors within one's perception of objective morality do not influence it's objective state and existence.
NOTE: Errors within one's perception don't influence objective facts!!!

You're arguing with really straight logic here -- I'm not sure what else you're trying to find. This is as clear as I can make it.

[brewer]

That would make killing relative, not to be confused with subjective.  The question is relative to what?  Is it relative to the subject, or to the specifics of the event.  Can throwing children into a wood chipper for the fun of it be moral, depending on the person?

Another example I seen recently was the old question, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?  If something is objective, it is true regardless of opinions or knowledge of it. It exists and is true regardless if everyone agrees, or even if no one believes.

Are the children dead? 

Is the person throwing the children psychotic? If they find enjoyment then they have no moral objection to it.

Do the children have a communicable disease with 100% mortality and threaten the rest of the group? I might get enjoyment from saving my community while not enjoying the actual act. 

Tree, sound, detection............. again with the science? Um, does it make a ground vibration? Mixed metaphor again.

---

What makes you think I care about what religion a scientists is. Does not matter as long as the science is correct and they don't interject religion/god. 

Why are you going back to science with the "subatomic particle" crap. You wanted to discuss moral(s) not science. If there are errors (great or small) in objective morals then they are not objective. 

But now that I understand that you are religious, I'm not surprised that you continue the theist dance/dodge.

Interesting ad hominem setup there. 

Also, you self-contradict in the span of 3 really short paragraphs:
"what religion a scientists is. Does not matter as long as the science is correct" ... "I'm not surprised that you continue the theist dance/dodge."
In the second phrase, you are clearly dismissing my explanations (which, notice, do not depend on any theistic precepts) based on your perception of my religion. In the first phrase, you claim that religion is irrelevant as long as the explanations are sound.

"Why are you going back to science with the "subatomic particle" crap. You wanted to discuss moral(s) not science. If there are errors (great or small) in objective morals then they are not objective."
Let me re-reiterate. 
Objective (adjective) - "The [objective] object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject's perception of it".
NOTE: An objective object presumably exists independent of one's perception of it!!!!!

Are you denying that you are religious??? 

I said as long as the "science" explanations are sound. Thanks for twisting my words. Completely what I expected. You need to dump the morals comparison to science. 

You have failed to demonstrate that morals are independent of a persons/subjects perception. That objective morals are indeed a fact.

No ad hominem, just an observation that theists seem to collectively demonstrate the same propensity for diversions and dodges.

Edit: I see you added more. Interesting that you say objective morals presumably exist. Good one.