Pelafina

You want people to respond to immoral actions meaningfully. This your subjective utilitarian wish. Someone else may have a different goal.

It is your subjective preference that moral claims ought to be consistent.

Is this study considered to be empirical evidence?

If morality is not subjective, then how can you prove that your version of what is morally correct, is the correct version? With math you can use logic to demonstrate the correctness of an equation. Please explain how you can do the same with morality.

Yes, and what you said is analogous to 1+1=3, therefore you are incorrect.

Some people think it's preferable when the government steals and redistributes. You don't think this is preferable. Two different opinions regarding morality. Morality is subjective.

When you make a statement that I disagree with, I will state that your belief is analogous to 1+1=3. Then I will proceed to conclude that your belief must be incorrect based on the analogy. Is this a logical way to make an argument? I think not.

moral - whether a behavior is right or wrong / good or bad. subjective personal preference theft - when a person takes something that is not their property.

This is your subjective belief. Some people hold the subjective belief that certain instances of theft (taxation) are morally acceptable. Therefore morality is subjective.

If someone believes that certain specifically defined instances of theft are better than cooperation they don't mind when that law applies to them and it becomes their turn to get taxed. For example, liberals believe it's good to tax the rich. When they receive welfare they are happy with it. Whenever they become rich, they are happy to pay higher taxes. This is their subjective belief system. You have a different belief system.

What you just said is your personal subjective belief. Do you agree?

It's not a valid argument to pretend that what I say is analogous to 1+1=3, therefore my argument is incorrect.

You can't prove your point by pretending that the subject we are talking about is analogous to math. This is your argument: "Everyone agrees that 1+1=2, therefore everyone must agree with me about morality, and anyone who disagrees is wrong". I don't buy and and I don't think anyone here does either.

If someone believes that theft is better than cooperation, they might be wrong according to your beliefs, but not according to their subjective beliefs. This is why morality is subjective. Are you familiar with Austrian economics which promotes the concept that value is subjective? If I ask you if a particular behavior is ethical, you may reply 'yes' or 'no'. If I ask someone else, they may reply differently than you. Therefore your statement that "people's behavior is ethical or it isn't" is incorrect.

And when they are enlightened to learn that the minimum wage is violence, they will hold the subjective belief that this petty violence is well worth the utilitarian result of avoiding having underpaid workers. They will subjectively believe that their morality is better than the morality of the free market. Therefore morality is subjective.

People have different subjective moral beliefs, such as believing that the minimum wage is just, while some people believe it is unjust. Those who believe it is just will teach the same to their children. Those who believe it is unjust will also teach their children to believe what they believe.

I agree with what you said, and want to add that even if someone believes that the tax law is just, the method of handling a tax evader does not have to be physical in nature. There are other non-violent ways to punish a person.

The cop violated the NAP by initiating violence against an innocent person, therefore the cop is a criminal according to libertarian code. If a libertarian does the right thing and attempts to arrest the cop who murdered Eric, he will be attacked by other cops. Therefore other cops are currently violating the NAP by threatening violence against the innocent libertarian who wants to arrest the cop who murdered Eric. And therefore all cops are criminals.

It's based on personal preference, nothing else. If your choices are led by logic, reason and evidence -- it's a personal preference to do this. On the other hand, if your choices are led by emotions -- it's still a personal preference.

Shirgall, I will read that book at your suggestion. What about this definition from Webster - a being that has great power, strength, knowledge, and that can affect nature and the lives of people. Do you agree that, according to this definition, there is no way to prove that this being does not or cannot exist?

What about all the other definitions of God that don't include omniscience, or omnipotence and that are not counter-logical, but just are unproven by science? By defining God in this way, one cannot say that they know God doesn't exist, therefore atheism is wrong and illogical. They can only say that there is no proof of God's existence and end it there. That is why I think that atheism is a religion, because it is based on the faith that one has a special power of being sure that something doesn't exist.

How can anyone know if God exists or not? When an atheist claims that God doesn't exist, I would ask that person: how can you know for sure that something doesn't exist? You can't use logic to conclude that something doesn't exist. You can only use guesses and assumptions and state that "God probably doesn't exist", or "my best guess is that God doesn't exist", or you can even say "theists need to prove their claims". If I asked you: Does a triangular-shaped iPhone exist? You would respond, "I don't think Apple make triangular iPhones" and you might even bet me that it doesn't exist -- but you cannot say "I am sure that it doesn't exist" because that would be illogical. The same rule applies to atheism.

How can anyone know if God exists or not? When an atheist claims that God doesn't exist, I would ask that person: how can you know for sure that something doesn't exist? You can't use logic to conclude that something doesn't exist. You can only use guesses and assumptions and state that "God probably doesn't exist", or "my best guess is that God doesn't exist", or you can even say "theists need to prove their claims". If I asked you: Does a triangular-shaped iPhone exist? You would respond, "I don't think Apple make triangular iPhones" and you might even bet me that it doesn't exist -- but you cannot say "I am sure that it doesn't exist" because that would be illogical. The same rule applies to atheism.

Don't be a bot, think for yourself. Does that statement apply to you? Do you believe what you believe because you want to believe it? You don't have to answer me, just answer it to yourself.

Does this statement apply to you, and everyone else on this forum for that matter?