3RU7AL

not believing in subjective morality is not believing in opinions

You see I'm not arguing that anything exists that we do not both agree exists. If you would like to say that morality cannot exist sans some god(s) then there just isn't any reason to believe in morality. Just people trying their best to get along with one another for... whatever reason. From there it is up to you to show that there is anything more to appeal to and then to demonstrate SEPARATELY that this something more is something more than some god(s) subjective opinion.

virtually everyone has the same bare-bone morals across all societies, and everyone just knows right from wrong from conciousness

if morality was subjective, then this would be the opposite

Loyalty at its unhealthy extreme is corruption and organised crime.

Justice at its unhealthy extreme is brutality and tyranny.

Mercy at its unhealthy extreme is neglect and [CHAOS].

*subject to* 

Doesn’t mean subjective.

Kinda does though

The only way you prove that is through a God that says you should or shouldn’t do something.

That’s makes morality *subject to* whatever God says.

God is the context of morality, he provides it

Within a few weeks the Israelites were starving, so Moses appealed to God, who promised: "I will rain down bread from Heaven for you", [Exodus 16] and delivered the mysterious, but nutritious, manna which was "white like coriander seed and tasted like a wafer made with honey"

So now approximately 3.1 million children die from undernutrition each year (UNICEF, 2018a). Hunger and undernutrition contribute to more than half of global child deaths, as undernutrition can make children more vulnerable to illness and exacerbate disease. What does God do? Nothing, so God is amoral or as Nietzsche said, God is dead.

IF you are unwilling or unable to present some argument AND you are unwilling or unable to accept some argument THEN your conversations will by necessity go nowhere.

Um... even if he provided "context" morality cannot be objective. You cannot derive an ought from an is.... no matter how is the is is.

God is the context of morality, he provides it

I agree. First we need a standard however and that standard will be subjectively chosen.

From a subjective human perspective, yes we have similar morals. The thing is - we are all similarly biased.

I’m allergic to ignorance regardless of ideology. 

My adult sister not believing in dinosaurs comes to mind.

And I know for sure she lacks critical thinking skills. 

Well you blocked me first I just returned the favor, and if you don’t care then why mention it?

I... already said that, a couple of posts up, so, I'm waiting for that quote of me now, where is it, this is only the third time I've asked, you said, "And I have the quotes to prove it", go ahead then. I literally started with. "Give me a quote with me saying "subject to" in the definition of subjective" I reworded it there, but its the exact same thing I've been asking for.

Incorrect. It is false to say that the sun revolves around the earth. You could claim, "It is perceived as if the sun revolves around the earth" but to claim that it does is factually incorrect. 

The 'object' is something that is only ever done things to and which itself has no perception worthy of considering as a first-person concern. The 'subject' is something that both has things done to it and actively can do things but more importantly while participating in acts it has a viewpoint and perception that is emotionally concerning and valuable.

Most people weren’t city planners. I’ll go as far as to say most people didn’t use maps.

Anyway, many ancient civilisation took into account the rotation of the Earth when planning their monuments. 

Incidental curvature not so much.

Again, your explanation likes clarity because I agree but I receive that different from how you’re giving it to me I receive that as “objective” morals are just a list of principles which inform what is “objectively” good and what is “objectively” bad. You are right about one thing though, I don’t understand what subjective morality is that’s why I view it as objective.

For example what would you say if I asked what fact should be preferred and why, the sky being blue or the grass being green?

I don't think that axioms are meant to be as whimsical as you are  suggesting.

Though as a statement of fact, it would be false to say that the Sun actually revolves around the Earth.

Why would premeditation INCREASE punishment?

Have you never done something in the spur of the moment and immediately regretted it? Have you never taken time to think about something and then realized whatever you were thinking is a bad idea?

This was in reference to my pointing out that Person B acted purely out of his circumstances. I was talking about immediate circumstances. The day to day things that change on a dime, like the route you happened to be walking. You then equated that to person A’s circumstances, as in his position in life and the environment he lived within. Those are entirely different things. The former tests your impulses, the latter tests your character as a human being.

It's easy to think that people who disappoint you were never sincere in the first place.

But experience has taught me this is not the case.

How do you know this? Judging ones sincerity is judging ones intent.

Predicting actions had nothing to do with this. Our conversation is about whether we can tell someone’s intent, and whether intent matters when judging someone’s actions.

Let me ask you... do you believe there is a difference between a bad person and a person who did a bad thing? If so, what is that difference?

That's why maps (of the earth) are generally drawn on flat pieces of paper.

Or maybe it’s just easier to carry around. Most people have believed in a spherical Earth for a millennium. 

That's like saying: well distinctionally, the sun rotates around the earth,

no, i don't believe protestants go to hell just because their protestants, I do believe that only the Catholic Church is correct

I haven't called Thomas an "atheists".     At the time of his doubting and asking for proof  the bible calls   Thomas a disciple and that is clearly noted. Thomas is  the worst type of disbeliever, yet Jesus offered him proof after Thomas RFUSED to believe " UNLESS". 

The only thing that needs to be defunded are the police unions collectively bargaining against the welfare of the public.

For the second time partakers in this discussion isn’t the narrative, the narrative was a hypothetical psychopath, you keep trying to draw a connection that doesn’t exist.

I'm only acknowledging the fact that in order to participate in this conversation (or any conversation for that matter) you must necessarily be alive (and conscious).

Yes, and I’m asking so what?

No one involved in the conversation is a nihilist.

I think it might be easier to just not concern ourselves with nihilists or psychopaths unless they get a large enough lobby together to effect legislation.

Yes, a hypothetical psychopath cannot survive without other hypothetical people.

And I’m asking what’s the point of bringing that up unless your trying to argue that we have to live.

And, the hypothetical psychopath is ALSO alive.

Not if there without other humans.

I'm confused about what seems to be a contradiction between statements from sections I and II of the introduction of (Meiklejohn's translation of) Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

The section I statement is

"Every change has a cause," is a proposition á priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience.

The section II statement is

If we cast our eyes upon the commonest operations of the understanding, the proposition, "Every change must have a cause," will amply serve our purpose.

This section II statement is meant to be exemplifying a judgement which is pure á priori. The section II example is basically the same as the section I example except now has the word "must", which seems to be functioning to guarantee that the latter example entails necessity, which makes the proposition pure. So on one hand, the section II example is pure because it entails necessity. But on the other hand, it is impure because, just like the section I example, it refers to the concept of change, which can only be derived from experience.

Is change in this section II example no longer a concept which can only be derived from experience? Or have I misinterpreted something prior? Or something else?

I've consulted also the Guyer and Wood translation, and that didn't clear up my confusion. [**]

But you and I weren’t the narrative, the narrative was a hypothetical psychopath.

Exactly so why do you bring up life as an argument?

That’s the whole point. For Person B this was just a snap shot. For Person A it wasn’t.

Even a hypothetical psychopath can't live without other humans.

...So? Why do we have to live?

I'm not sure you can distill someone's "core values" simply by observing a single snapshot of their life experience.

That’s the whole point. For Person B this was just a snap shot. For Person A it wasn’t.

Isn't it obvious that someone who is able to demonstrate restraint and actually takes the time to think about something before they do it, isn't it obvious that this is behavior we should generally encourage in our citizens?

Of course it is, that’s why the crime is not excusable regardless of whether it was premeditated.