I sense a disturbance in the Force.
1) As Yeezy pointed out to you and others moral philosophers have been talking about the FOUNDATIONS of this issue about objective/subjective morality. We are nowhere closer to the 'truth' of an objective morality at all. The reason why is because there is no ultimate answer to the issue. Unlike say if somewhere were to ask you wheter 'clouds' or 'rain' or 'chairs' or a 'wall' or 'testicles' objectively exist outside of the mind. Hit yourself in the balls and find out the answer to that one.
But you’re wrong that moral ideas cannot exist outside the mind. I can create a moral idea, write it in a book, then die, then the next guy and read what I said, and learn the moral standard. In between me dying and the next guy reading it, where did the moral idea exist? Outside of the mind.
2) I stated
But ideas, since they are the product of human minds, are essentially subjective.
and you now say that this is your position too.
You’re wrong that that is my position. You’ve misinterpreted me.
I agreed to the idea that moral ideas come from human minds. The statement I agreed to said nothing about your subjectivity comment.
Therefore what is it that required an explanation? I make a point, a simple point, that even the most intellectually challenged individual can get.
Instead of claiming that I misunderstood you and that my misunderstanding is because I’m not smart enough, why don’t you pay attention to your own interpretations of what I say so that you can look for your possible misinterpretations?
I do not post for your entertainment nor will I trawl through your tedious and inconsistent philosopher-wannabe 'articles'. If you can't surmise your point in a simple, BS-free manner then it isn't worth my time.
so then why are you commenting here? if you don’t want to talk to me, then don’t comment on my essays.
3) Morality is subjective but can become objectivated via laws e.g. UDHR. The social sciences bear witness to this. Believe it or not most sane people don't consider it necessary to formulate convoluted BS in order to get a simple point across. The laws however require interpretation and interpretation is a subjective exercise as its based upon a persons/groups experiences/ideas/thoughts. It's a cycle in which subjectivity plays a large part.
All the interpreting you’re talking about can be done objectively. Just because most people don’t doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
Seriously, RR, not covinced by your argument (whatever the hell it is).
How can you be convinced by an argument that you don’t understand? That doesn’t make any sense.
You seem to be an atheist Hamza Tzorzis/Adam Deen. Put that in your adhominem pipe and smoke it.
Adhominem is personal attacks. But I didn’t make any of those and actually you’re the one who made some personal attacks on me. What are you talking about?
Topic: Is morality subjective or objective?