is morality subjective?

[Agalloch]

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.

Well, it's really important that you understand how irrelevant this is to our conversation first. We weren't anywhere near discussing whether morality was subjective because it took you an entire page of discussion to not provide an irrational argument to back up a major logical fallacy. Assuming you now see the major fault in your reasoning, you have to ask yourself sincerely if you can understand the basic logic necessary, or add anything to a conversation about, morality. If i repeat the same flawed argument in another area of expertise than my own and I am shown to be demonstratably out of my depth on numerous occasions, I would probably take a step back from the conversation and work on my basics before asking the most complicated questions in that field.

 

Secondly, morality is still mostly irrelevant whether people think its subjective or not. So ask yourself why you want these answers - though aren't willing to put in the prerequisite amount of effort. The vast majority of people support the state, not because morality is subjective, but by committing major logical contradictions. They take their subjective moral standards and still enforce them.completely incorrectly for the state. Are you just here to argue for your indoctrination? Or because you really care about the answers? If you do, go study some basic logic first, it'll really help you understand and formulate basic arguments.

 

Finally, moral correctness can also be determined from logic. All things on reality can be, because reality is logically consistent. Invalid moral claims lack consistency, universality and contradict the basic meaning of morality, by which action is necessary.

[Pelafina]

Finally, moral correctness can also be determined from logic. All things on reality can be, because reality is logically consistent. Invalid moral claims lack consistency, universality and contradict the basic meaning of morality, by which action is necessary.

 

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

[Agalloch]

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

No. It's a requirement of the meaning of the word. If moral claims aren't consistent then people can't respond to immoral actions meaningfully. The concept of an inconsistent morality can't exist because its functionally equivelant to garblqarbj.

[Pelafina]

No. It's a requirement of the meaning of the word. If moral claims aren't consistent then people can't respond to immoral actions meaningfully. The concept of an inconsistent morality can't exist because its functionally equivelant to garblqarbj.

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

[Agalloch]

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

Nope. That's the point of havong the word morality. If they respond arbitrarily then its not morality, its sparblburklunk. Words have meanings to distinguish things. Just saying all those things are subjective is to misunderstand why they have unique words.

[Pelafina]

Morality definition: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.  A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

 

How can a certain action be "right" in the same way that 1+1=2 is correct?  Someone may think that putting your kid in time-out is right, and someone else may think it's wrong.