Subjective Morality and God

[liamconnor]

Many here like to point out that morality is subjective. But many like to point out the moral wrongs of the so called god of the bible.


But if morality is subjective, then why are the doings of this god wrong?

Is it possible that there is a god, that it is the god of the bible, and that morality is subjective?

This question is for people who have subscribed to a subjective moral worldview, and yet continue to denounce the god of the O.T. as being objectively immoral.

If there is no objective morality, then the god of the o.t. cannot be denounced on moral grounds (other grounds, yes, but not moral grounds).

Right?

[wiploc]

Another example would be, back in the 1980's, there was a particular actress, that I found appealing, while most everyone I knew could not understand how I could do so. But it was a fact that I did, and I was right to say that, "she appealed to me", while the others were correct to say, "they could find no appeal at all."

Again, this is what it means for something to be subjective. There can be no wrong. The subjective is not a standard.

Some people think its cool for men to have several wives, but uncool for women to have several husbands. Other folks think it's wrong for anybody to have more than one spouse. Either team can make a rule, just like your father did, and have it be just as objective as your father's rule.

Rather it is based upon the "feelings, tastes, and opinion of each individual", so that there can be no, absolute right, verses wrong!

And, once again, what do you mean by "absolute"? How does absoluteness come into play when we're talking about objective and subjective?

The "objective" is not based upon personal "feelings, tastes, and opinions", because if something is objective, then there is a right, verses a wrong.

You left out a step. Objective things ignore human reactions. How does ignoring human reactions create right and wrong?

An example of an objective would be, referring to the same actress, and I were to claim that her "eyes were blue", while others were to claim they were green. In this example, you can clearly see that this argument would not be based upon personal "feelings, tastes, and opinions", and the reason is, because it can be determined what color her eyes actually are, and by default, one or the both of us would be wrong.

So then, if morality is subjective, then no one can be wrong to say, "they prefer a certain morality over another", since the very definition of the word subjective is, "based upon the feelings, tastes, and opinions." You cannot be wrong concerning your personal, "feelings, tastes, and opinions."

Now, if morality were to be objective, this would mean that it is not, "based upon, nor influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions", which would mean morality would be what it would be, despite our, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions."

Why should anybody go along with a morality divorced from human feeling? What would be the point? In what sense would it be binding? In what sense would we be accountable to it?

So then, to be clear, if morality is subjective, then we all determine morality for ourselves, and there are no wrongs, because it is based upon, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions", and one cannot be wrong when declaring what their "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions" are.

I have an idea. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you just correct me if I'm wrong, but are you thinking that, somehow, there would only be one objective morality? That objective morality, for some reason, wouldn't be a snarl of conflicting moral systems?

If so, how does your single moral system result from ignoring human feelings, tastes, and opinions? I don't see how the one thing entails the other.

Here, let me invent two objective moral systems:

System A: Everybody with a hammer must use it to hit other people.
System B: Nobody with a hammer gets to hit other people.

Those are both stupid enough that they are obviously unrelated to human reactions. So they must be objective according to your definition. And yet they contradict each other.


[/quote]
So you see, there need not be any punishment involved!
[/quote]

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

So in what sense would we be accountable to an objective moral system that we would not be accountable to a subjective moral system?

Now, if someone is going to claim that I am wrong to feel a certain way, concerning morality, then they would by necessity have to demonstrate that there is a standard that has nothing to do with my personal feelings, tastes, and opinions.

I don't get it. Why couldn't the person demonstrate that you violated a subjective moral rule. If you reject both systems, why does it matter whether a particular system you reject ignores human feeling?

[Realworldjack]

Another example would be, back in the 1980's, there was a particular actress, that I found appealing, while most everyone I knew could not understand how I could do so. But it was a fact that I did, and I was right to say that, "she appealed to me", while the others were correct to say, "they could find no appeal at all."

Again, this is what it means for something to be subjective. There can be no wrong. The subjective is not a standard.

Some people think its cool for men to have several wives, but uncool for women to have several husbands. Other folks think it's wrong for anybody to have more than one spouse. Either team can make a rule, just like your father did, and have it be just as objective as your father's rule.

Rather it is based upon the "feelings, tastes, and opinion of each individual", so that there can be no, absolute right, verses wrong!

And, once again, what do you mean by "absolute"? How does absoluteness come into play when we're talking about objective and subjective?

The "objective" is not based upon personal "feelings, tastes, and opinions", because if something is objective, then there is a right, verses a wrong.

You left out a step. Objective things ignore human reactions. How does ignoring human reactions create right and wrong?

An example of an objective would be, referring to the same actress, and I were to claim that her "eyes were blue", while others were to claim they were green. In this example, you can clearly see that this argument would not be based upon personal "feelings, tastes, and opinions", and the reason is, because it can be determined what color her eyes actually are, and by default, one or the both of us would be wrong.

So then, if morality is subjective, then no one can be wrong to say, "they prefer a certain morality over another", since the very definition of the word subjective is, "based upon the feelings, tastes, and opinions." You cannot be wrong concerning your personal, "feelings, tastes, and opinions."

Now, if morality were to be objective, this would mean that it is not, "based upon, nor influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions", which would mean morality would be what it would be, despite our, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions."

Why should anybody go along with a morality divorced from human feeling? What would be the point? In what sense would it be binding? In what sense would we be accountable to it?

So then, to be clear, if morality is subjective, then we all determine morality for ourselves, and there are no wrongs, because it is based upon, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions", and one cannot be wrong when declaring what their "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions" are.

I have an idea. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you just correct me if I'm wrong, but are you thinking that, somehow, there would only be one objective morality? That objective morality, for some reason, wouldn't be a snarl of conflicting moral systems?

If so, how does your single moral system result from ignoring human feelings, tastes, and opinions? I don't see how the one thing entails the other.

Here, let me invent two objective moral systems:

System A: Everybody with a hammer must use it to hit other people.
System B: Nobody with a hammer gets to hit other people.

Those are both stupid enough that they are obviously unrelated to human reactions. So they must be objective according to your definition. And yet they contradict each other.

So you see, there need not be any punishment involved!
[/quote]

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

So in what sense would we be accountable to an objective moral system that we would not be accountable to a subjective moral system?

Now, if someone is going to claim that I am wrong to feel a certain way, concerning morality, then they would by necessity have to demonstrate that there is a standard that has nothing to do with my personal feelings, tastes, and opinions.

I don't get it. Why couldn't the person demonstrate that you violated a subjective moral rule. If you reject both systems, why does it matter whether a particular system you reject ignores human feeling?[/quote]





I really do not know what else to do here, but I will not give up, because this is important for all to understand. If we insist that morality is subjective, then it is not possible for someone to actually violate morality.

Instead of me attempting to respond to all you say, lets simply take one issue at the time.

Why should anybody go along with a morality divorced from human feeling? What would be the point? In what sense would it be binding? In what sense would we be accountable to it?

This is exactly my point! If morality is subjective, it has everything to do with, "human feeling", and there can be no wrongs, because a person cannot be wrong about how they feel about a certain thing. Therefore, since morality is subjective, it is not binding, and we are in no way accountable to any morality at all.

But this is because morality is subjective. There are many things in this life that are objective, which means they are devoid of "human feeling." Like, I do not feel like I should have to die, but death is an objective fact, and could care less how I feel.

There are many issues in this life, that have nothing whatsoever to do with how I feel. There may be some who feel like the Earth is flat, but it does not matter how they feel, because it is an objective fact, that it is not.

So then, if morality were to be objective, then it would be a fact, and how I may feel, would have no bearing upon it. I may not feel like this objective morality was right, and I may not agree with it, but if morality were to be objective, my feelings would not factor into the equation.

There is no way around this! Either morality is an objective fact, and has nothing to do with, "human feeling", and there is a right, as opposed to a wrong, and those who violate this morality can be accused. Or morality is subjective, which means it is totally based upon human feelings, tastes, and opinions, which means there are no wrongs, and no one could be accused of violating it.

I don't get it. Why couldn't the person demonstrate that you violated a subjective moral rule.

I am the one who "don't get it!" If something is subjective, rules, are ruled out! There are no "rules" with the subjective, because it is totally based upon, or influenced by, the feelings, tastes, and opinions, and we are all free to feel as we wish. So there are no rules! You cannot insist that morality is subjective, and then go on to apply rules.

[Bust Nak]

I really see no reason for you, and I to discuss. You simply seem to want to insist that you are right, and ignore the fact that by the very definition of the word "subjective" there can be no wrongs. Rather, there are only, rights!

You say "ignore the fact" but all I am doing is correcting a falsehood. It is not the case that the definition of subjective implies no wrongs.

However, allow me to attempt to explain it to you one last time.

No, let me attempt to explain it to you, borrowing from your own words, for as long as it takes:

Slavery is disagreeable to me, and I am absolutely correct that it is indeed disagreeable to me. Simply because there may be others who find owning slaves appealing would not change the fact that it is disagreeable to me. Those who like slavery, are correct to say they do, and I am correct to claim that it is agreeable to me.

NOTICE! When I say "slavery is bad, period!" I am stating a fact, that it is disagreeable to me, and it does not matter who, or how many people enjoy keeping slaves, this does not, and would not change the fact that it is disagreeable to me.

This is what it means for morality to be subjective. There can be no correctness in subjectivity. The subjective is not one standard, but many standards based upon the "feelings, tastes, and opinion of each individual," who is right and who is wrong depends on which standard you use.

The "objective" is not based upon personal "feelings, tastes, and opinions", because if something is objective, then there is a correct, verses an incorrect (note the difference here between wrong and incorrect; and right and correct. This is of the upmost importance.)

An example of an objective would be, referring to the an actress's eye color, as it can be determined what color her eyes actually are, and by default, one or the both of us would be incorrect.

So then, if morality is subjective, then no one can be incorrect to say, "they prefer a certain morality over another", since the very definition of the word subjective is, "based upon the feelings, tastes, and opinions." You cannot be incorrect concerning your personal, "feelings, tastes, and opinions."

Now, if morality were to be objective, this would mean that it is not, "based upon, nor influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions", which would mean morality would be what it would be, despite our, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions."

So then, to be clear, if morality is subjective, then we all determine morality for ourselves, and there are rights and wrongs based upon, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions", and one cannot be incorrect when declaring what their "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions" are.

If morality were to be objective, this would mean that we can determine exactly what morality would be, and could demonstrate those that were outside the lines, no matter what their "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions would be, because if morality were to be objective, then our "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions" would not factor into the equation. But that's moot since we both agree that morality is subjective.



You need to stop getting correctness mixed up with approval. You started off fine - you noted the difference between being correct and disapproval of liver, but as soon as you moved onto morality, you forget all about that distinction. When you say liver tastes bad - you are not saying someone is incorrect for liking liver. Similarly when you say slavery is wrong - you are not saying someone is incorrect for wanting to keep slaves. Morality is analogous to food taste, the only difference is morality applies to thoughts and action, where as food taste applies to food. Your claims, using this analogy would become something like this:

"If food taste is subjective, it has everything to do with, "human feeling", and there can be no nasty tasting food, because a person cannot be wrong about how they feel about a certain food; If we insist that food taste is subjective, then it is not possible for someone to actually hate liver. Food taste is subjective, which means it is totally based upon human feelings, tastes, and opinions, which means there are no nasty tasting food, and no food (not even liver) could be accused of violating the standard of tastiness. You cannot insist that food taste is subjective, and then go on to hate liver."

And it makes zero sense. Next time you want to say something about subjective morality, think what it would mean if you apply the same reasoning to subjective taste.

[Realworldjack]

I really see no reason for you, and I to discuss. You simply seem to want to insist that you are right, and ignore the fact that by the very definition of the word "subjective" there can be no wrongs. Rather, there are only, rights!

You say "ignore the fact" but all I am doing is correcting a falsehood. It is not the case that the definition of subjective implies no wrongs.

However, allow me to attempt to explain it to you one last time.

No, let me attempt to explain it to you, borrowing from your own words, for as long as it takes:

Slavery is disagreeable to me, and I am absolutely correct that it is indeed disagreeable to me. Simply because there may be others who find owning slaves appealing would not change the fact that it is disagreeable to me. Those who like slavery, are correct to say they do, and I am correct to claim that it is agreeable to me.

NOTICE! When I say "slavery is bad, period!" I am stating a fact, that it is disagreeable to me, and it does not matter who, or how many people enjoy keeping slaves, this does not, and would not change the fact that it is disagreeable to me.

This is what it means for morality to be subjective. There can be no correctness in subjectivity. The subjective is not one standard, but many standards based upon the "feelings, tastes, and opinion of each individual," who is right and who is wrong depends on which standard you use.

The "objective" is not based upon personal "feelings, tastes, and opinions", because if something is objective, then there is a correct, verses an incorrect (note the difference here between wrong and incorrect; and right and correct. This is of the upmost importance.)

An example of an objective would be, referring to the an actress's eye color, as it can be determined what color her eyes actually are, and by default, one or the both of us would be incorrect.

So then, if morality is subjective, then no one can be incorrect to say, "they prefer a certain morality over another", since the very definition of the word subjective is, "based upon the feelings, tastes, and opinions." You cannot be incorrect concerning your personal, "feelings, tastes, and opinions."

Now, if morality were to be objective, this would mean that it is not, "based upon, nor influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions", which would mean morality would be what it would be, despite our, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions."

So then, to be clear, if morality is subjective, then we all determine morality for ourselves, and there are rights and wrongs based upon, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions", and one cannot be incorrect when declaring what their "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions" are.

If morality were to be objective, this would mean that we can determine exactly what morality would be, and could demonstrate those that were outside the lines, no matter what their "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions would be, because if morality were to be objective, then our "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions" would not factor into the equation. But that's moot since we both agree that morality is subjective.



You need to stop getting correctness mixed up with approval. You started off fine - you noted the difference between being correct and disapproval of liver, but as soon as you moved onto morality, you forget all about that distinction. When you say liver tastes bad - you are not saying someone is incorrect for liking liver. Similarly when you say slavery is wrong - you are not saying someone is incorrect for wanting to keep slaves. Morality is analogous to food taste, the only difference is morality applies to thoughts and action, where as food taste applies to food. Your claims, using this analogy would become something like this:

"If food taste is subjective, it has everything to do with, "human feeling", and there can be no nasty tasting food, because a person cannot be wrong about how they feel about a certain food; If we insist that food taste is subjective, then it is not possible for someone to actually hate liver. Food taste is subjective, which means it is totally based upon human feelings, tastes, and opinions, which means there are no nasty tasting food, and no food (not even liver) could be accused of violating the standard of tastiness. You cannot insist that food taste is subjective, and then go on to hate liver."

And it makes zero sense. Next time you want to say something about subjective morality, think what it would mean if you apply the same reasoning to subjective taste.

You cannot insist that food taste is subjective, and then go on to hate liver.

This is an outrageous claim, and this is exactly why I say, "there is no reason for you and I to continue." I absolutely can, "insist that food taste is subjective, and then go on to hate liver", exactly because the taste of food is subjective.

What I cannot do, if taste of food is subjective, is to say, "those who claim to enjoy the taste of liver are wrong." Since, taste of food is subjective, I can hate the taste of liver, while others can absolutely love the taste, and neither of us would be wrong, concerning our taste.

In the same way, if morality is subjective, then I may hold that it is immoral to own slaves, while others may hold to the opinion that it is perfectly fine, and neither of us could be wrong, exactly because morality would be left to the feelings, tastes, and opinions, of each individual, just like food taste.

No one can be wrong concerning their subjective feelings, tastes, and opinions, about morality. If we are going to tell others they are wrong to feel a certain way about moral things, then we would most definitely have to demonstrate that there is a standard of morality that has nothing whatsoever to do with ones, feelings, tastes, and opinions.

[Bust Nak]

This is an outrageous claim, and this is exactly why I say, "there is no reason for you and I to continue..."

I think I might have hit upon some thing here. Borrowing your words but switching food taste and morality around, may be just the key for dispelling the misconception on subjectivity:

This is an outrageous claim, and this is exactly why I say, "there is no reason for you and I to continue." I absolutely can, "insist that morality is subjective, and then go on to say slave keepers are wrong", exactly because the morality is subjective.

What I cannot do, if morality is subjective, is to hold that it is immoral to own slaves. Since, morality is subjective, I can hate slavery, while others can absolutely love slavery, and neither of us would hold that slavery is immoral, concerning our morality.

In the same way, if food taste is subjective, then I may hate the taste of liver, while others may absolutely love the taste, and neither of us could hate liver, exactly because food taste would be left to the feelings, tastes, and opinions, of each individual, just like morality.

No one can hate the taste of something concerning their subjective feelings, tastes, and opinions, about food taste. If we are going to tell others that we hate certain taste about food, then we would most definitely have to demonstrate that there is a standard of food taste that has nothing whatsoever to do with ones, feelings, tastes, and opinions.

See how it makes zero sense by simply swapping the concepts of food taste and morality around? Are you seeing the analogy? Morality is analogous to food taste; saying "slave keepers are wrong" is analogous to stating "I hating the taste of liver;" actually stopping slave keepers is analogous to not eating liver.

Furthermore, there is huge difference between "you are morally wrong" and "you are factually wrong." The former means "you are immoral" the latter means "you are incorrect." Yet time and time again you fail to note this very important difference, when you "no one can be wrong" without specifying if you meant "no one can be immoral," or "no one can be incorrect." Worse still, it becomes a fallacy when you arbitrarily switch the meaning on the fly.

[Realworldjack]

This is an outrageous claim, and this is exactly why I say, "there is no reason for you and I to continue..."

I think I might have hit upon some thing here. Borrowing your words but switching food taste and morality around, may be just the key for dispelling the misconception on subjectivity:

This is an outrageous claim, and this is exactly why I say, "there is no reason for you and I to continue." I absolutely can, "insist that morality is subjective, and then go on to say slave keepers are wrong", exactly because the morality is subjective.

What I cannot do, if morality is subjective, is to hold that it is immoral to own slaves. Since, morality is subjective, I can hate slavery, while others can absolutely love slavery, and neither of us would hold that slavery is immoral, concerning our morality.

In the same way, if food taste is subjective, then I may hate the taste of liver, while others may absolutely love the taste, and neither of us could hate liver, exactly because food taste would be left to the feelings, tastes, and opinions, of each individual, just like morality.

No one can hate the taste of something concerning their subjective feelings, tastes, and opinions, about food taste. If we are going to tell others that we hate certain taste about food, then we would most definitely have to demonstrate that there is a standard of food taste that has nothing whatsoever to do with ones, feelings, tastes, and opinions.

See how it makes zero sense by simply swapping the concepts of food taste and morality around? Are you seeing the analogy? Morality is analogous to food taste; saying "slave keepers are wrong" is analogous to stating "I hating the taste of liver;" actually stopping slave keepers is analogous to not eating liver.

Furthermore, there is huge difference between "you are morally wrong" and "you are factually wrong." The former means "you are immoral" the latter means "you are incorrect." Yet time and time again you fail to note this very important difference, when you "no one can be wrong" without specifying if you meant "no one can be immoral," or "no one can be incorrect." Worse still, it becomes a fallacy when you arbitrarily switch the meaning on the fly.

See how it makes zero sense by simply swapping the concepts of food taste and morality around? Are you seeing the analogy?

NO! I am afraid I do not, my friend!

saying "slave keepers are wrong" is analogous to stating "I hating the taste of liver;"

I will assume you meant to say, "I (hate) the taste of liver, instead of, "I (hating) the taste of liver. If this is the case then saying, "slave keepers are wrong" is not in any way analogous to saying, "I hate the taste of liver."

What would be analogous to saying, "slave owners are wrong", would be to say, "those who like the taste of liver are wrong." What would be analogous to saying, "I hate the taste of liver" would be to say, "I hate the morality of those who hold that it is completely moral to own slaves."

You see, believing, or saying something is wrong, is not even close to hating, what you believe to be wrong.

As an example, I may absolutely believe that it is wrong to speed. But this does not in any way mean that I must hate speeding. In fact, I may love to speed. I may be convinced that it is absolutely immoral to have a slave, but I may love to have one.

With the position I hold at work, there will be those that will come to me and say, "we ought to do this, or that." Many times I will respond and say, "yeah, I would love to do that as well, and have actually thought about it, but it would be wrong to do."

So you see, simply because you may be convinced something is wrong, does not in any way mean, you must hate it. Therefore, your analogies, are way off, my friend!

actually stopping slave keepers is analogous to not eating liver.

Wrong again my friend! You see, what would be analogous to "stopping slave owners" would be "stopping people from eating liver." What would be analogous to "not eating liver" would be, not owning slaves yourself.

The problem is, I may hate liver, but I see no problem with others enjoying the taste. If this is the case, then I will not eat liver myself, while allowing others to enjoy the taste. However, I may love the taste of liver, but believe it is wrong to eat liver, and I may not eat liver myself, and go on to attempt to prevent anyone else from eating liver.

Furthermore, there is huge difference between "you are morally wrong" and "you are factually wrong."

Well, lets analyze this. If morality is subjective, then one cannot be accused of being "morally wrong", since there would be no facts concerning morality. The only way one can be accused of being "morally wrong", is if morality were to be objective. In this way, one could not only be "morally wrong", they could also be, "factually wrong." If morality is subjective, then one cannot be, "morally or factually" wrong, concerning morality.

The former means "you are immoral" the latter means "you are incorrect."

Lets analyze this as well. If morality is subjective, then no one can be, "morally wrong." However, if morality were to be objective, and we had a standard, being morally wrong, would not in any way necessitate that one must be immoral themselves.

For example, lets imagine for a moment, that there is an objective standard for morality. Lets also imagine that according to this standard that neither homosexuality, nor heterosexuality, were immoral. Now lets imagine you have someone who feels as if they are homosexual, but somehow have become convinced that it is morally wrong, and abstains from sex altogether, so as not to be immoral.

In this example, this person would be wrong concerning morality, but it would not cause them to be immoral.

So then, if morality were to be objective, there really would be no difference at all between saying, "you are morally wrong", and "you are factually wrong", because we would have facts to point to. However, since morality is subjective, there are no facts concerning morality, therefore no one can be rightly accused of being morally wrong.

At any rate, you seem to be hung up on my use of the word "wrong." So lets attempt to see if we can agree on something without the use of this word.

Can we agree, that if morality is subjective, that no one can be rightly accused of actually being immoral?

[Bust Nak]

I will assume you meant to say, "I (hate) the taste of liver, instead of, "I (hating) the taste of liver. If this is the case then saying, "slave keepers are wrong" is not in any way analogous to saying, "I hate the taste of liver."

Yes it is.

What would be analogous to saying, "slave owners are wrong", would be to say, "those who like the taste of liver are wrong."

No it isn't. "Those who like the taste of liver are wrong" is a moral statement, not one about taste.

What would be analogous to saying, "I hate the taste of liver" would be to say, "I hate the morality of those who hold that it is completely moral to own slaves."

Close enough, but that's a long winded way of saying "slavery is wrong."

You see, believing, or saying something is wrong, is not even close to hating, what you believe to be wrong...

It's an analogy - hating the taste of liver when translated into the context of morality is not hating slave keepers, but disapproval of their thoughts and actions. Believing that it is wrong to speed means you would prefer it if no one speeds, no where had I implied that it meant you hate speeding.

Wrong again my friend! You see, what would be analogous to "stopping slave owners" would be "stopping people from eating liver." What would be analogous to "not eating liver" would be, not owning slaves yourself.

They are both analogous. People who hate slavery acts on their opinion, and sometimes it takes the form of not owning slaves, sometimes it takes the form of stopping slave owners. The latter is a better fit since it is the more typical action inspired by the immorality of slavery; just as not eating liver is the typical action inspired by the hatred of liver.

The problem is, I may hate liver, but I see no problem with others enjoying the taste. If this is the case, then I will not eat liver myself, while allowing others to enjoy the taste. However, I may love the taste of liver, but believe it is wrong to eat liver, and I may not eat liver myself, and go on to attempt to prevent anyone else from eating liver.

Right, that much is fine, why did you call it a problem?

Well, lets analyze this. If morality is subjective, then one cannot be accused of being "morally wrong..."

Incorrect. If morality is subjective, then one cannot be accused of being "morally incorrect", since there would be no facts concerning morality. The only way one can be accused of being "morally incorrect", is if morality were to be objective. In this way, one could not only be "morally incorrect", they could also be, "factually wrong." If morality is subjective, then one cannot be, "morally or factually" incorrect, concerning morality.

One can only be accused of being morally wrong but not factually wrong, since there would be no facts concerning morality.

For example, lets imagine for a moment, that there is an objective standard for morality. Lets also imagine that according to this standard that neither homosexuality, nor heterosexuality, were immoral. Now lets imagine you have someone who feels as if they are homosexual, but somehow have become convinced that it is morally wrong, and abstains from sex altogether, so as not to be immoral.

In this example, this person would be wrong concerning morality, but it would not cause them to be immoral.

Factually wrong or morally wrong? You forgot to say again. If morality is subjective, that no one can be rightly accused of objectively being immoral.

Here is a bit of advice. Stop using the word wrong completely. Say immoral when you mean immoral, say incorrect when you mean incorrect.

So then, if morality were to be objective, there really would be no difference at all between saying, "you are morally wrong", and "you are factually wrong", because we would have facts to point to.

Right. But that moot since you and I both agree that morality is subjective.

However, since morality is subjective, there are no facts concerning morality, therefore no one can be rightly accused of being morally wrong.

Incorrect. No one can be correctly accused of being morally incorrect. Slave keepers for example, can be rightly accused of being morally wrong.

At any rate, you seem to be hung up on my use of the word "wrong." So lets attempt to see if we can agree on something without the use of this word.

Can we agree, that if morality is subjective, that no one can be rightly accused of actually being immoral?

That depends on what you mean by "actually." How would you interpret the following statement: "livers are actually tasty?"

As a) "I enjoy the taste of liver immensely;" or b) "livers are objectively tasty, independent from opinion, taste and feelings?"

If "slave keepers are actually immoral" mean "slave keepers are objectively immoral, independent from opinion, taste and feelings" then yes, I agree. I am guessing that's what you meant by "actually" since you predicted I would agree.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 57 by Bust Nak]


Okay, before we continue, let me take the word "actually" out of the equation. With this being the case, the question would be,

Can we agree, that if morality is subjective, this would mean that no one can be rightly accused, of being immoral?

[Bust Nak]

Okay, before we continue, let me take the word "actually" out of the equation. With this being the case, the question would be,

Can we agree, that if morality is subjective, this would mean that no one can be rightly accused, of being immoral?

No, we cannot agree on that. If morality is subjective, this would mean that anyone can be rightly accused, of being immoral. Allow me to demonstrate:

Slave keepers are rightly accused by me, of being immoral.

It does however mean that no one can be objectively accused of being immoral, but that much should be obvious since subjective morality is a given here.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 57 by Bust Nak]


Okay, before we continue, let me take the word "actually" out of the equation. With this being the case, the question would be,

Can we agree, that if morality is subjective, this would mean that no one can be rightly accused, of being immoral?

That's like saying, "If we agree that race courses are to be measured in meters rather than furlongs, no one can rightly be said to have finished a race."

In fact, if you stipulate the length of the course in meters, then the race will be finished when that many meters have been passed.

Likewise, if you stipulate that morality is subjective, then it becomes an objective fact that immorality occurs when someone violates subjective moral rules.