Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that there is no evidence for an objective morality, but there is evidence for subjective ones.
As long as we agree that you requested fallacious answers, and that I merely refused to accommodate such an invalid request.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Mind you, Sivad seems to think there is such evidence. It seems like the two of you have different ideas as to what objective morality is.
Though it may give you comfort to think that the reason everyone seems to be kicking your ass is because they are on a team, I assure you that Sivad's position is his own. This is not an argument and it is irrelevant.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have provided examples that show this to be true.
No, you have given examples of people having subjective belief X and using an external criteria Y to lend comfort to their belief and execution of X. This does not lend any justification to the execution of X as being morality in any sense whatsoever. You have no given a rational justification for your own moral condemnations and actions, let alone that of anyone else. I'd worry about yourself.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not believe that I need to have some sort of objective code in order to have the moral authority to condemn others.
And I have given examples of how we do this.
Yes, you have given examples of people doing stuff. That is not morality, nor is that a rational justification. That is observation of human behavior and does not rationally justify any "ought" claims you make.
Your feelings that you do not need a rational justification to make moral condemnations are quite irrelevant. The reality is that you have no justification without some sort of objective grounds.
Think of it this way, if you want a moral requirement to apply to anyone beyond yourself, the authority or rationale for that requirement must come from beyond yourself as well. You cannot do this, thus you cannot obligate anyone beyond yourself, rationally speaking, on the basis of your very own claims.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please do not get angry with yourself just because you are having trouble understanding.
When I asked for evidence, I was not asking for evidence that a moral claim must be followed. I was looking for evidence that an objective moral claim exists. This evidence could exist, as you put it, as a mere correlation to the action you already affirm (for other reasons) to be obligatory.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you do not need logic to be objective, universal, or absolute in order for language to work.
The section in bold is a distinction without a difference. that a moral claims must be followed is what makes it a moral claim in the first place.
Likewise, the empirical correlation to a subjective belief could not constitute as evidence for an objective morality. That amounts to nothing more than finding something in reality that comforts your own conscience as to your own arbitrary moral beliefs, which being mere preference, are no morality at all.
Regarding logic, human intelligibility, all of it, requires the presupposition of an objective, universal, and absolute logic.
If logic is not such, then there is no reason to assume the constancy of identity. Hence, if you say or refer to "Tree", if logic is not universal, then it may also mean "non-tree" to me and this would be how language could work, whatever you say may mean the opposite as no law of fixed identity were presupposed as universally binding.
Thus, if you believe logic is not universal, then you do believe it is universal, because if there is no universal law of contradiction, then there is. If you are right, then you are wrong. If that doesn't make sense, that is because you position is nonsensical.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no doubt you believe that.
But my point was that there is no scientific, empirical, or historical data pointing at an objective morality.
You cannot demand a universal be proven from a set of observed particulars, which is why that request is fallacious.
Please tell me about the smell of the color nine please.
Thanks.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I mentioned a few. While I understand why you do not think they are rational justifications, they seem to work well enough for communities to have moral norms.
"working well enough" for communities creating arbitrary and unjustifiable "norms" is irrelevant as to whether their norms or ethical claims are rationally consistent with their worldview.
Please provide a rational justification for your moral claims.
Thanks.