Morality Is Subjective

Law of Nature (A2)You did get the main point that in order to debate about morality there must be some correct objective morality. To respond to the idea if we all had the same standard there would be no quarrelling, people disagree on solutions to arithmetic problems too, but that doesn't mean that math is subjective it just means at least one of them is wrong. Further, you can't say that another person solution is wrong unless there is an objective correct answer. Also, when they quarrel people don't say well morality is subjective; therefore, did nothing wrong. They instead will give excuses such as being in a bad mood. This show how deeply you believe in such a objective morality because you try to show that you didn't violate the standard there was just a special exception. To compare morality to music is not a very good comparison. Morality is not a matter of preference, like I prefer to think that murder isn't wrong, because you could never make any laws regarding behavior, or judge anyone's behavior whether it is rape, murder, assault because they would think it was ok to do that. Further, they would think the laws prohibiting such things are unjust. The first video goes into more depth about the law of nature than I could on here. Anyways, there are tunes that people like better for music. There is something called common meter [1] which is used in numerous songs. See the second video to see some of the songs. . http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Common Morality (A2)It is not just some overlap, it is majority overlap. With such a similarity between all those there must be some objective standard, or else we should have seen totally different moralities. We cannot picture such a thing though, image a place were a soldier was admired for running away in battle or a person who is proud that he double crossed everyone who showed the most kindness to them. As far as the Aztecs they did human sacrifices to please the Gods or they would be angry with them [5] , so they did it by force not because they thought it was ok. It was the equivalent of someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to give them all the banks money. You do things you would not normally do out of fear. Now with slavery, People do things they know is wrong for their own gain, like someone fudging numbers to give themselves money. This does not mean that the math was subjective, but rather it is objective they just did it wrong. Animals (A4 and A5)Order & structure are not equivalent to morality and that was never my point. Animals are moral agents; true they don't ponder some of the really complex moral ideas such as is abortion, euthanasia, suicide morally permissible. They understand morality such as don't go on the bed, or stay with the pack, or don't mess with the Alpha. Without moral rules there is no structure or order because it would be a state of anarchy. As for how the one statement would be objectively immoral, it is a contradiction under Kant. Kant (A1) & Correct Moral Behavior (A3)You have understand Kant all wrong. Firstly, what you mention about contradictions is called a perfect duty, and there is more to it than that. Second, adultery is a contradiction, as you must think that all people would commit adultery, but then it would void the reason to have marriage anyways since it is suppose to be one man and one woman who are faithful to each other; therefore, no one would get married because they would commit adultery but then adultery would be impossible since no one is married. Concluding, adultery is a contradiction, and therefore always wrong. Thirdly, the inquiry to murder as you pointed out is the biggest objection always pointed out, but there is a good answer. Yes, you have to tell the truth, but that doesn't mean you have to talk at all. There would be nothing immoral about calling the police and not telling the murderer anything. Fourthly, you missed the other half of Kant's moral philosophy with imperfect duties. These are not ones that lead to contradictions, but ones that have exceptions. For example, driving cars is not immoral, but driving a car that exhaust vast amounts of toxic gases would be. The third video here is about Kant and I think you could learn a lot. Further, this is an objective standard. . http://www.youtube.com...Human Rights & Logically ConsistentThere is a contradiction, or at least it was totally pointless. If morality is subjective then giving your moral opinion is pointless since it is your personal belief, which has no objective value; therefore, contributes nothing to the debate. Also, just because you can give your opinion about does not mean it is subjective. I could say I believe triangles have 4 sides; therefore, shapes of triangles are subjective. However, this would be silly to say in both cases. That isn't what reality is. Here is what reality is. We believe there are certain rights that it would be wrong to violate. [4] Which if morality is subjective you could not have any laws addressing any moral questions since as soon as you make a law about it, it is objective. Further, then you are forcing your morality, which has no objective value, onto others. It would be the equivalent to saying that monopoly is everyone favorite game to play. Because if morality is subjective and just a matter of preference then to make laws about it would be hypocritical. In fact in your situation you stopping the killer, would be wrong if you asked the killer, and they would say you are committing a immoral act which you can not say he is wrong because it is subjective. Triangles (A4)Morality is not a process or a function. Morality is a concept, so I fail to see how this has any merit. Evolution (A5)Naturalism: a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. [2] That is exactly what evolution is. So, to claim it is a strawman is ridiculous. Evolution has helped explain small things like beak changes, but when you get to bigger topics such as origins of Muli-cellular organism, and origins of sexs there are many problems. [3] This undermines your argument because you said "from an evolutionary perspective, morality is subjective. ", so if I eliminate the evolutionary perspective then your argument has no validity then. Further, his actual response to the argument is very strange. He says "‘if P then Q, P, therefore Q’ would not be true. ", but this is not true. P=naturalism is true, and Q=Everything is non-rational. If (Naturalism is true) then (everything is non-rational), (Naturalism is true), therefore (Everything is non-rational). I am not sure how this is not true, I explained everything. IF reason is naturally evolved, then yes, naturalism would be true. However, like I stated reason cannot come from non-reason. If your reasoning came from an undirected process that follow laws of physics, and chemical laws, then how did it produce something, reasoning, outside of the laws? If it didn't then your reasoning is not rational, but a result of non-rational actions. Conclusion I have shown there is equal or more reason to believe that morality is objective than subjective. Sources[1] . http://www.britannica.com...[2] . http://goo.gl...[3] . http://goo.gl...[4] . http://www.un.org...[5] . http://www.ancient.eu.com...