How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

You get the same thing in morality, general agreement, with lots of variations.

I don’t think it is the same, so show why you think it is the same (since you brought it in to support your view). Go into more detail and then I’ll either agree with you and retract my claim or say where I disagree and you can bring in more support or clarification, if you have it.

So what? FA are just sharing their view on what they expect the pitch size to be. They didn't create the people they want to follow their rules either.

They do create the teams though. A team isn’t some fixed being; it’s an idea. And the FA creates what their “teams’” natures are and what purpose they exist for. “Teams” aren’t fixed in their nature, like physical beings are.

No, I also don't see what rule would be in play here. I was talking about binding rules.

We are talking about moral rules being objective features of reality, like the shape of the Earth; we aren’t just talking about rules.

But you don't know what makes a rule objectively binding?

I’ve suggested one thing would be an act of creation that provides objective nature and purpose. Without this thing or some alternative that would also get us there, I would just be a standard subjectively binding people to my rule.

Without objective purpose, we can have that losing a finger is a form of physical damage, but there is no goal that says “avoid physical damage”.

I agree. That's why I didn't mention goals in my proposal for grounding objective morality either. Just objective nature.

Without a goal, we can’t say if losing a finger is good or bad. Good/bad exists relative to some goal because the same act can be good for something and bad for something else. If there is an objective goal, then we have an objective good.

And that's what makes it subjective: a subject decided that. In contrast with objective features, where no one gets to decide anything, no one gets to decide what shape the Earth is, it is what it is, a ball.

If that makes it subjective, then theism would lead to the shape of the Earth being subjective. That’s not how you view theists’ views on the shape of the Earth, is it? This is why I keep saying you are equivocating on “subjective”.

Sure. The point is still this: the goal for which something was created is not the same thing as objective goal

How would you define an objective goal? That a subject didn’t decide what it is? That doesn’t make sense to me. What is an example of an objective goal?

So which is it, no objective standard->agnosticism, or no objective standard->be okay?

One who says the latter is a subjectivist. One who says the former is an agnostic. While an objectivist says ‘yes objective standard’ -> be okay (or not okay).

Okay, but that's not what I asked for, "no good reason for not being rationally okay with their choice is not the same thing" as "one should be rationally okay with their choice." There is no good reason to be rationally okay with their choice, either.

Then you are an agnostic, not a subjectivist about human morality.

Okay, I agree with all of that, I've been make the same point too. Was there anything I said that gave you the impression that I would object to any of that?

That you seem to agree that these are three different claims:

1. The Earth appears flat to me
2. The Earth appears flat to me and spherical to Anna
3. The shape of the Earth is a subjective feature of reality

But not these:

4. Child abuse appears bad to me
5. Child abuse appears bad to me and good to Bob
6. The moral value of child abuse is a subjective feature of reality

You have seemed to say (6) is necessarily the same thing as (4) or maybe (4) and (5), but you don’t think (3) is necessarily the same claim as (1) or (2).

[boatsnguitars]

Tanager, Do you believe God can make something both exist and not exist? (at the same instance, same place, etc)

[JoeyKnothead]

If morality is subjective, then it’s “wrong” in exactly the same sense that eating vanilla instead of chocolate is “wrong,” but not how most people usually mean “wrong”. And those are “rights” in exactly the same way eating vanilla ice cream is a “right,” but not how most people usually mean “rights”.

Some like vanilla, some don't. Subjectives tastes.

Your point, what is it?

That a subjectivist, as a subjectivist, is okay with other people basing their food choice on their subjective taste. They don’t call that choice wrong. In the same way, a subjectivist, as a subjectivist, should also be okay with other people basing their moral choice on their subjective taste. They shouldn’t call that choice wrong. Or, if they do, then they should also call the food choice of other people wrong.

We were talking about right and wrong in terms of morality.

But let's carry on this bit of a charade...

What food is objectively wrong?

[The Tanager]

Tanager, Do you believe God can make something both exist and not exist? (at the same instance, same place, etc)

I don’t think so. Thanks for asking that, as it corrects at least one thing I said recently. I shouldn’t say that logic comes from the nature of God. It simply comes from the nature of ‘stuff’ and their interactions. So, while morality is like logical laws in that they aren’t made of “stuff,” they are unlike in that they do come from the nature of God.

[The Tanager]

We were talking about right and wrong in terms of morality.

But let's carry on this bit of a charade...

What food is objectively wrong?

I think it’s relevant. I’m a food taste subjectivist, so I don’t think food choices based on food taste preferences are objectively wrong. If I was a moral subjectivist, I wouldn’t think moral choices based on moral taste preferences would be objectively wrong.

[boatsnguitars]

Tanager, Do you believe God can make something both exist and not exist? (at the same instance, same place, etc)

I don’t think so. Thanks for asking that, as it corrects at least one thing I said recently. I shouldn’t say that logic comes from the nature of God. It simply comes from the nature of ‘stuff’ and their interactions. So, while morality is like logical laws in that they aren’t made of “stuff,” they are unlike in that they do come from the nature of God.

So, Logic transcends God - since it would seem impossible that God could change the Law of Non-Contradiction to apply to things. That's makes Logic Objective. It is outside the whim, or decision, of some Subject.

Likewise, in order for Morals to be Objective, they'd need to transcend God's ability to change them at a whim.

If it's wrong for a moral agent to kill another moral agent (in any way) - then it is simply wrong. If it's objectively wrong, its wrong for God, too.

It's the only way an OMV makes sense with or without a God.

Your concept of Objective is "Objective except for God". That's not Objective. Adding IAoC is just a red herring, or a distraction to the whole conversation.

Either OMVs are objective, like Logic, or they aren't.

You said Morals come from God - what made God King of morals? Gods have a history of deciding all kinds of morally questionable things, so we can't think we know they are moral by what that do.

Do you agree?

Also, as you tell me more and more what morals, logic, god, etc are, I see that you are pretty much sticking to the classical theist wrote responses. These have not fared well in any intellectual debate, and worse, they are designed specifically to avoid investigation. They are purposely designed to be untestable.

Think of one way we can test any of your claims.

If God started killing angels, men, women, babies, animals, for fun - I wouldn't say, "Well, I guess that's moral now", I'd say, "That's not right."

But, of course, we never see God do anything(because God doesn't exist), so the next best thing is if a religious person saying they are killing because God said so, I'd tell them they are wrong, too.

You'd say, "Go ahead, Hitler, if you say God says it's OK, then it's OK." Because Christians don't have any sense of morality other than what they think God tells them - at least, that's the outcome of your ethical theory.

[JoeyKnothead]

We were talking about right and wrong in terms of morality.

But let's carry on this bit of a charade...

What food is objectively wrong?

I think it’s relevant. I’m a food taste subjectivist, so I don’t think food choices based on food taste preferences are objectively wrong. If I was a moral subjectivist, I wouldn’t think moral choices based on moral taste preferences would be objectively wrong.

What moral value is objectively true / wrong?

[The Tanager]

So, Logic transcends God - since it would seem impossible that God could change the Law of Non-Contradiction to apply to things. That's makes Logic Objective. It is outside the whim, or decision, of some Subject.

Likewise, in order for Morals to be Objective, they'd need to transcend God's ability to change them at a whim.

I’m going to assume you mean “of all subjects” since, under this definition, my theory would lead to morals being outside the whim or decision of some subjects (humans), but not all subjects.

Why should that be the definition of ‘objective’? That’s not what most objectivists mean when they call themselves that about human morality. Shouldn’t we be defining terms how people who use them define them? We are talking about human morality. Human morality would be objective if it is outside the whim or decision of all pertinent subjects, namely, humans. Objectivists don’t consider animals to be immoral when they do what would be, for humans, immoral.

I’ve already said I don’t think morals are objective in your sense of ‘objective’. If we used your definition, then we aren’t talking about what objectivists are talking about. That would mean that you entered a discussion about what objectivists claim and redefined their term, making it a different question under discussion, and then getting agreement claim victory on the initial question.

If it's wrong for a moral agent to kill another moral agent (in any way) - then it is simply wrong. If it's objectively wrong, its wrong for God, too.

It's the only way an OMV makes sense with or without a God.

Your concept of Objective is "Objective except for God". That's not Objective. Adding IAoC is just a red herring, or a distraction to the whole conversation.

My concept is objective except for the standard itself, whether that’s God, the Big Bang, etc. The moral standard, logically, cannot be a moral agent of itself. The king cannot be a subject to this king.

Also, as you tell me more and more what morals, logic, god, etc are, I see that you are pretty much sticking to the classical theist wrote responses. These have not fared well in any intellectual debate, and worse, they are designed specifically to avoid investigation. They are purposely designed to be untestable.

Think of one way we can test any of your claims.

My philosophical claims are logically testable. We’ve been testing them. I’ll respond to reasoning that tries to show they don’t fare well; unsupported assertions are useless. You’ve shared some on point critiques; I’ve shared my responses. People get to make up their minds. Any new reasonings you offer, I’ll respond to.

[The Tanager]

I think it’s relevant. I’m a food taste subjectivist, so I don’t think food choices based on food taste preferences are objectively wrong. If I was a moral subjectivist, I wouldn’t think moral choices based on moral taste preferences would be objectively wrong.

What moral value is objectively true / wrong?

I thought you said you wanted to “carry on this bit of a charade…” Looks like you just want to revert to your refrain. That’s your choice, whatever your reasoning for doing so.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think it’s relevant. I’m a food taste subjectivist, so I don’t think food choices based on food taste preferences are objectively wrong. If I was a moral subjectivist, I wouldn’t think moral choices based on moral taste preferences would be objectively wrong.

What moral value is objectively true / wrong?

I thought you said you wanted to “carry on this bit of a charade…” Looks like you just want to revert to your refrain. That’s your choice, whatever your reasoning for doing so.

I'm trying to understand your position as it relates to the OP.

If you can accept the subjective nature of taste, but seem not to for morality, I seek to find what objective morality there is to be considered.