The Tanager wrote:
So, what, it's the same for everyone in the sense that whatever it is moral for Person X, it is that for Person X, but what is moral is different for different people? You can make that fit, but that is a confusing, unclear, indirect way.
Consider the two statements: "lying is wrong regardless of circumstances" and "lying is fine under if you are protecting Jews from Nazis." Under subjectivism, they are synonymous with "Bust Nak disapprove of lying regardless of circumstances" and "Bust Nak disapprove of lying under certain circumstances" correspondingly.
Both are subjective - they describe what I, a subject, approve or disapprove of. The first is absolute, while the second is not. I don't find it confusing, unclear or indirect at all, because I come naturally with the presumption of subjectivism, you found it confusing because objectivism is what came naturally to you. Hence my original point - it's clear that many objectivist accuse subjectivists of inconsistence simply because they misidentify our actions and thoughts.
Before the passage we are focusing on here, Euthyphro talks about how his family thinks it is impious for a son to prosecute a father. In response he says they are wrong, that it is pious to prosecute one's father if he is guilty (saying this truth comes from the gods)...
Did he say it's a truth though, or are you reading truth from a simple moral statement? Saying it is a truth form the gods would indicate that he is talk about objectivism.
In contrast saying it's right to prosecute a killer where the slaying is unjust, regardless of whether the killer is your father or not, only indicate he is talking about absolutism.
But this is talking about how things makes you feel. I'm talking about how you act towards those who act on tastes that differ from your tastes.
One leads to the other, how I act is based on how thing makes me feel. Me stopping and punishing child abusing priests is based on how
that makes me feel (not fine.) Me not stopping and punishing rap musician is based on how
that makes me feel (just fine.)
You dislike abusing children. You also want those who act on their like of abusing children to be stopped, punished, etc.
Right, but you have to realise, my dislike of abusing childing is not why I want those who act on their like of abusing children to be stopped and punished. "I do not like to abuse children" and "I do not like it when a priest abuses a child" are very different claims. It is the latter that causes me to stop and punish such priests.
"I do not like to abuse children" does not necessity implies "I do not like it when a priest abuses a child," those are separate issues. This much should be obvious to you as you've experienced similar thing yourself - you do not like country music, yet you are fine with people who favor country music, right?
You dislike rap music. Do you also want those who act on their like of rap music (or bitter gourds, etc.) to be stopped, punished, etc.?
No, as I said before, I only want those who act on their like to be stopped, punished where I am not fine with their taste. I am fine with tastes favoring rap, I am not fine with tastes favoring child abuse.