snapshot182 wrote:The question still remains though. So what? The answer is simple: because I want to. Because I want to be sensible. Because I prefer the truth. Because I think it's in my best interest and I like that. That's all it comes down to. You can shell out consequences all you want, but if I don't care about the consequences, I'm not bound or obligated to behave a certain way.
snapshot182 wrote:The point is, when someone puts forth any truth claim, moral or not, they are simultaneously expressing a preference for truth which obligates them to accept the truth.
You just finished implying (and about you, saying
) people aren't
bound or obligated to do that.
snapshot182 wrote:That is where the "ought" lies: in preference expressed through action.
I don't see how that's any distinct from opinion.
snapshot182 wrote:Let's say I disrespect your opinion. Does that mean it's OK for you to shoot me, or jail me, or steal from me?
In our moral system, generally not. You generally need to act upon such disrespect to merit repercussions.
Subjective morality includes people imposing their opinions on each other, however, and explains it not as something good or bad but as something that happens and has happened.
snapshot182 wrote:I have no problem with you holding your own opinions. Will you let me hold mine?
And you're welcome to your opinion on that.
snapshot182 wrote:So what you're saying is that [your] [subjective] morality is just a threat. It's "You better do this or else."
All subjective morality, and many kinds of objective morality, is a threat as you describe. Without an enforcement mechanism, moral claims are moot.
snapshot182 wrote:What you're saying is that your [government's] [subjective] moral imperatives applies to those innocent people, but it doesn't apply to the people in government who threaten and use physical force.
Our moral system applies recursively to our government. This is called "the rule of law" - though at this point, the line blurs a bit between this and ethics.
snapshot182 wrote:People can't live peaceful lives free from the violence of government.
No enforced moral system exists independently from violence, because violence is necessary to impose punishment upon people violating a moral system.
The moment you make "Murder is wrong" mean anything, there's violence, or a threat of violence.
snapshot182 wrote:But it's not OK for anyone to disagree with the government and be left to their own devices. Government won't allow that. That's setting up different moral rules for different people. This is what I mean about inconsistent moral reasoning.
It's not inconsistent - morality is imposed by governments, and governments don't allow people to not be imposed upon because it's imposition
snapshot182 wrote:Morality has to be objective otherwise it's just opinion.
It's rather more than just opinion - it's fairly important and significant opinion!
snapshot182 wrote:We might as well say, "This vanilla ice cream is moral," because it means virtually the same thing as saying, "This vanilla ice cream is good."
If society punished people for having chocolate ice cream, then yeah, vanilla ice cream would be more moral than chocolate. Ditto, I suppose, if society rewarded people for having the vanilla.
snapshot182 wrote:If there is no objective definition of "good," and morality deals with what is "good," then morality is just preference and opinion, which means it's impossible to discuss morality outside of people's sensibilities.
No, it's possible to hypothesize objective morality even if morality is subjective, such as from a source external to reality, simply by claiming that a subjective moral system is actually an objective one.
snapshot182 wrote:I'm saying you're using the word morality in a way that contradicts your own manner of using it--you're using it as though it were objective and as though I ought agree with you on it's use.
No, I'm not. Unlike you, I am not presupposing the objectivity of morality, nor do I need to at any point in a moral discussion.
In summary: You want morality to be objective, but your argument for it is logically fallacious (morality is objective because morality is objective, or begging the question
) so I, at least, am never going to buy it, and if you keep working with fallacious arguments and not acknowledging the problems with them, you'll probably eventually get kicked out of SB and then obviously this subpoint will have terminated.