Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

...you say God created life, and is able to continue it after physical death, and if you want anyone to believe you, you need to give a plausible account of how he does that...

As I did. He's God. All life comes from Him.

Now, you can say, "Well, I don't believe in God." That's a different question. But if, as I believe, God actually does exist, then that's a very plausible account. In fact, there could be nothing more plausible than that the Originator of life and Giver of souls should be able to say how long that life or soul continues.

Yet if I claimed that life came about by some other phenomenon, you would say that unless I could explain the process by which it produced it, I would have no grounds for making the claim. You would not accept, "well it just did it", but that is what you expect others to accept when you say it.

As for souls, no one seems to be able to give a definitive explanation of what one actually is, let alone demonstrate that such a thing actually exists. So, if we are still entitled to believe in souls, despite that, why should we not also be entitled to give them whatever qualities and purpose we like, without even having to explain how it could be possible? You appear to have granted yourself that entitlement, but are denying it to everyone else.

When Peter Holmes suggested there could be life after death, and a purpose to the universe without God, you said:

Then you're going to need to explain what mechanism can produce life after death without God.

And then you're going to have to show that objective purpose is in the universe without God.

And if you can't, then they are indeed "God claims."

But you can't explain what mechanism can produce life after death with God, so it is hard to see how not being able to explain it without him makes God a plausible alternative, let alone the inevitable alternative.

Nicely put. If a causal explanation provides no evidence for the cause or the causal mechanism - viz, 'my team's god dun it' - then it doesn't explain anything.

And I think there's a difference between suggesting there could be life-after-death and a purpose to the universe without a god - and not denying their possibility. I just don't think anyone can meet the burden of proof for claiming that they're impossible.

IC's straw man fallacy is that rejecting any team's god-claim means you have to reject the possibility of life-after-death, a purpose to the universe, a rational morality, and so on. But those conclusions are not entailed.

[Dontaskme]

But if, as I believe, God actually does exist, then that's a very plausible account.

It's obvious that to believe I exist as something other than what is presently here now that cannot possibly be known, does apparently seem to turn unknowing into a known, and make it appear real for the believer, and that this belief cannot be refuted ''if'' I say so, or I believe so.

So, say 'if' I want to believe I exist, all I have to do is think I exist and believe it....even though I have no real or concrete truth as to HOW the idea is possible at all. The How part of all this never reveals itself, and that's what makes this magical and mysterious. If you knew HOW then you would be able to control every second of what happens in reality, but as you know very well, no one or thing has the power to control it's existence.

As for your comment: where you say God created life, and is able to continue it after physical death...

Digest this....

Only That Which Dies Can Renew Itself
When we talk of a spiritual entity, we mean by that something which is not within the field of the mind, obviously. Now, is the 'I' such a spiritual entity? If it is a spiritual entity, it must be beyond all time; therefore it cannot be reborn or continued. Thought cannot think about it because thought comes within the measure of time, thought is from yesterday, thought is a continuous movement, the response of the past; so thought is essentially a product of time. If thought can think about the 'I', then it is part of time; therefore, that 'I' is not free of time, therefore it is not spiritual, which is obvious. So, the 'I', the 'you' is only a process of thought; and you want to know whether that process of thought, continuing apart from the physical body, is born again, is reincarnated in a physical form. Now go a little further. That which continues can it ever discover the real, which is beyond time and measurement. That 'I', that entity which is a thought-process, can it ever be new? If it cannot, then there must be an ending to thought. Is not anything that continues inherently destructive? That which has continuity can never renew itself. As long as thought continues through memory, through desire, through experience, it can never renew itself; therefore, that which is continued cannot know the real. You may be reborn a thousand times, but you can never know the real, for only that which dies, that which comes to an end, can renew itself.

[Immanuel Can]

...you say God created life, and is able to continue it after physical death, and if you want anyone to believe you, you need to give a plausible account of how he does that...

As I did. He's God. All life comes from Him.

Now, you can say, "Well, I don't believe in God." That's a different question. But if, as I believe, God actually does exist, then that's a very plausible account. In fact, there could be nothing more plausible than that the Originator of life and Giver of souls should be able to say how long that life or soul continues.

Yet if I claimed that life came about by some other phenomenon, you would say that unless I could explain the process by which it produced it, I would have no grounds for making the claim.

The reason for that is obvious: that you, yourself, claim to believe in nothing but natural processes. That's a limitation you've placed on your own answers, assumptively. I do not grant that assumption, nor limit myself to Materialist terms of answering. If I did, I would not be a Theist, would I?

So it makes perfect sense that it should be like that.

When Peter Holmes suggested there could be life after death, and a purpose to the universe without God, you said:

Then you're going to need to explain what mechanism can produce life after death without God.

And then you're going to have to show that objective purpose is in the universe without God.

And if you can't, then they are indeed "God claims."

But you can't explain what mechanism can produce life after death with God,

That's very easy to explain.

I don't think God is a "mechanism." Nor do I think Creation happened by mere "mechanisms." In fact, it cannot have done, since there were, by definition, neither materials nor mechanisms in place before God did it.

But Peter (and, I think, you as well) don't believe in things other than natural "mechanisms," so your own answers will have to be confined to the terms you give yourselves. And as for me, I'm quite happy to confine my answers to the terms I impose on myself.

And so I do: though I also try to recognize that you don't share those assumptions, so I don't expect you to just assume them. That's why I say, IF God exists. I can only answer your question according to the assumptions I consider true. I cannot restrict myself to a purely "naturalistic" or "mechanical" explanation, without thereby denying the truth of my own basic worldview. But I also know I cannot simply impose that belief upon you: so I have to state as a hypothetical that which I regard as simply factual.

That you cannot see an explanation purely from natural mechanics neither surprises me, nor amounts to any stroke against Theism. Rather, it may well imply that the fault is in the mechanistic assumptions themselves. I think that's exactly where it lies.

[Peter Holmes]

I don't think God is a "mechanism." Nor do I think Creation happened by mere "mechanisms." In fact, it cannot have done, since there were, by definition, neither materials nor mechanisms in place before God did it.

But Peter (and, I think, you as well) don't believe in things other than natural "mechanisms," so your own answers will have to be confined to the terms you give yourselves. And as for me, I'm quite happy to confine my answers to the terms I impose on myself.

In other words, IC can't show his team's god exists, and can't show how it did what it did, and does what it does. His team's god may as well be a cosmic fairy, goblin or devil. The value of the 'explanation' is identical - zero.

So this is an appeal every bit as debased as a childish appeal to magic. And this is the intellectual degradation that any kind of supernaturalism demands of its deluded cult followers. It's embarrassing and shameful. Hence the elaborate evasion and cognitive dissonance. The humiliation has to be erased at all costs. Self-esteem is at stake.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think God is a "mechanism." Nor do I think Creation happened by mere "mechanisms." In fact, it cannot have done, since there were, by definition, neither materials nor mechanisms in place before God did it.

But Peter (and, I think, you as well) don't believe in things other than natural "mechanisms," so your own answers will have to be confined to the terms you give yourselves. And as for me, I'm quite happy to confine my answers to the terms I impose on myself.

In other words, IC can't show his team's god exists,

On the terms you want to impose? Namely, that no God exists?

No, I can't. And you cannot explain why things fall down if I ban you, before you can speak, from referring to gravity. But that would not be a fault in your explanation, but in my imposition of unrealistic terms.

All I ask is that you answer my question about morality...not on MY terms, but on YOUR OWN. And even on your own terms, it seems you cannot.

At least I can do that much. And if I'm right, that's a great deal indeed, actually.

[Peter Holmes]

I don't think God is a "mechanism." Nor do I think Creation happened by mere "mechanisms." In fact, it cannot have done, since there were, by definition, neither materials nor mechanisms in place before God did it.

But Peter (and, I think, you as well) don't believe in things other than natural "mechanisms," so your own answers will have to be confined to the terms you give yourselves. And as for me, I'm quite happy to confine my answers to the terms I impose on myself.

In other words, IC can't show his team's god exists,

On the terms you want to impose? Namely, that no God exists?

Not so. This is the usual evasion - and I think you should be ashamed. What evidence do you have for the (unique) existence of your team's god? As you know, claims aren't evidence for their own truth. And nor are arguments evidence for their premises.

No, I can't. And you cannot explain why things fall down if I ban you, before you can speak, from referring to gravity. But that would not be a fault in your explanation, but in my imposition of unrealistic terms.

More dishonest evasion. What evidence do you think is being excluded in advance? Why so shy? Why not cite the inner evidence of the holy spirit in your soul - or your personal knowledge of Jesus? Could it be that, as an intelligent adult, you know such 'evidence' is laughable, for several reasons?

All I ask is that you answer my question about morality...not on MY terms, but on YOUR OWN. And even on your own terms, it seems you cannot.

I've demonstrated that the existence of any agent - or its commands, wishes, plans or nature - does not entail any moral conclusion. And you haven't refuted that argument. You just ignore it, time and again. Which is dishonest. And the reason why you're dishonest is because your only rebuttal can be by way of a special pleading fallacy.

At least I can do that much. And if I'm right, that's a great deal indeed, actually.

But your answer is demonstrably false. Theistic moral objectivism is moral subjectivism - of a cravenly irrational kind - pretending not to be: what my team's god says is morally right or wrong is morally right or wrong. This is moral corruption.

[Skepdick]

This is moral corruption.

On what non-moral grounds do you make such assertions?

[popeye1945]

Morality is subjective, as all meaning is. It is considered objective when biological consciousness creates extensions of those sentiments in the outside world in the form of churches and the institutes of law/rules, besides establishing common modes of behavior which are acceptable or not acceptable. However, the manifestation of those systems and structures are themselves known only on a subjective level and have meaning only on a subject level. The source of all meaning, knowing and behaviors are of a subjective nature. We cannot know anything but on a subjective level, morality is made objective for all like creatures for their subjective experience. Think of it as mass indirect communication.

[Immanuel Can]

In other words, IC can't show his team's god exists,

On the terms you want to impose? Namely, that no God exists?

I think you should be ashamed.

That, in itself, is a very curious utterance for an Atheist. Why "should" somebody "be ashamed," when his subjective feeling about it is satisfied? There's no reason in Atheism that he "should." As Hume argued, there's no "should" at all.

You use so much morally-laden, objective-style language in your vituperation. "You should...", you write. And presumably, you want me to believe the behaviour you attribute to me is bad...and objectively so...bad from your subejctive perspective, and bad from the perspective you think I also should be sharing.

Yet you don't believe in any of it, apparently. You've insisted you don't. Remember? There are no objective moral values, says Peter.

What evidence do you have for the (unique) existence of your team's god?

Plenty. But I've had that discussion elsewhere, and it's not really the main one here. The question in hand is whether any sense can be made of a "subjective" view of morality, given Atheism as an a priori.

No, I can't. And you cannot explain why things fall down if I ban you, before you can speak, from referring to gravity. But that would not be a fault in your explanation, but in my imposition of unrealistic terms.

What evidence do you think is being excluded in advance?

When the only evidence you're going to recognize as evidence has, by your fiat, to exclude the premise, "God exists," then you have already denied the only answer that matters. After that, there is no answer that's going to happen.

All I ask is that you answer my question about morality...not on MY terms, but on YOUR OWN. And even on your own terms, it seems you cannot.

I've demonstrated that the existence of any agent - or its commands, wishes, plans or nature - does not entail any moral conclusion.

You are an agent. So your subjectivity, with it's "commands, wishes, plans or nature," according to you "does not entail any moral conclusion." Therefore, as I have said, Atheism is amoral and nihiistic. It's utterly incapable of telling us anything at all about moralty -- even why it exists as a phenomenon, since Atheism gives us no reason to suppose it ought to exist at all, since nothing in the natural world corresponds (according to the Materialism, Physicalism or Naturalism essential to supporting Atheism) to morality.

So they answer to your OP above, for you, has to be: "Neither. Morality is a delusion."

And that's what I've said your conclusion had to be, all along.

Theistic moral objectivism is moral subjectivism...

You're assuming the conclusion you want...not proving it. Theism isn't moral subjectivism, by definition. You might say it's "deluded moral objectivism," and no doubt you would; but it clearly isn't any kind of subjectivism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You might say it's "deluded moral objectivism," and no doubt you would; but it clearly isn't any kind of subjectivism.

That is a good point to counter PH's Morality cannot be Objective; but PH is trapped in his own philosophical realism ideology to see theistic morality is "deluded moral objectivism".

I argued theistic morality is "deluded moral objectivism' because it is grounded on a illusnory God; thus to insist so is being delusional.

It is Impossible for God to be Real [thus illusory].
viewtopic.php?t=40229

What is subjectivism is based on the opinions, judgments and beliefs of an individual or disorganized number of individual[s].

Whatever is objective, fact, knowledge and truth is conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK is the most objective.

Theistic morality is conditioned upon a human-based theistic moral FSK with its holy texts as its constitution, therefore it is objective [as defined].
Theistic moral FSK is grounded on an illusory God [see argument above].
Therefore the theistic morality is 'deluded moral objectivism' of negligible objectivity in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But your answer is demonstrably false. Theistic moral objectivism is moral subjectivism - of a cravenly irrational kind - pretending not to be: what my team's god says is morally right or wrong is morally right or wrong. This is moral corruption.

So,

This is moral corruption.

On what non-moral grounds do you make such assertions?

I know your grounds are based on philosophical realism which are grounded on an illusion;
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Actually, theists also ground their claims on philosophical realism, thus both ended up with an illusion.
As such there is no way you can refute the theists' claim 'God exists' effectively; this is why IC can eels, spins around and taunts at you.

The only way to refute theism to smithereens is to concede initially, that theism [with a Constitution] is FSK-ed objective like all other FSK-ed objectivity.
Then demonstrate it is impossible for God to exists as real, so, it is illusory [deluded].
Thus, theistic morality is 'deluded moral objectivism'.

[Peter Holmes]

On the terms you want to impose? Namely, that no God exists?

I think you should be ashamed.

That, in itself, is a very curious utterance for an Atheist. Why "should" somebody "be ashamed," when his subjective feeling about it is satisfied? There's no reason in Atheism that he "should." As Hume argued, there's no "should" at all.

False. Hume just argued that no is can entail an ought or should - not that there are or can be no oughts or shoulds.

You use so much morally-laden, objective-style language in your vituperation. "You should...", you write. And presumably, you want me to believe the behaviour you attribute to me is bad...and objectively so...bad from your subjective perspective, and bad from the perspective you think I also should be sharing.

No - you smuggle in 'objectively so', which begs the question. 'If you force a raped girl to give birth, you should be ashamed of yourself' - expresses a strong moral opinion. But the purpose behind expressing that opinion is a separate matter. And I'd think that 'wanting you to agree with me' isn't top of the list of reasons.

Yet you don't believe in any of it, apparently. You've insisted you don't. Remember? There are no objective moral values, says Peter.

Straw man, which you're desperate to stand up. 'There's no logical contradiction between the following assertions:

1 There are no moral facts, but only moral beliefs, judgements or opinions.
2 Forcing a raped girl to give birth is morally wrong.

Now, you lie that I 'don't believe any of it'. But if there are only moral beliefs, judgements and opinions - if #1 is true - belief is the only option. And I believe that forcing a raped girl to give birth is a moral abomination - and that those who advocate or do it are monsters.

What evidence do you have for the (unique) existence of your team's god?

Plenty. But I've had that discussion elsewhere, and it's not really the main one here. The question in hand is whether any sense can be made of a "subjective" view of morality, given Atheism as an a priori.

1 No, you have no actual evidence - to my knowledge. You've been duped and delude yourself.
2 The word 'atheism' isn't a proper noun, so it doesn't need initial capitalisation, any more than does 'theism', 'homophobia', 'misogyny', and so on.
3 My atheism isn't 'a priori', so that's a straw man.
4 You continue to ignore the fact that rejecting any team's god-claims doesn't entail any of the conclusions you want to smuggle in, such as 'no god = no morality'.

No, I can't. And you cannot explain why things fall down if I ban you, before you can speak, from referring to gravity. But that would not be a fault in your explanation, but in my imposition of unrealistic terms.

What evidence do you think is being excluded in advance?

When the only evidence you're going to recognize as evidence has, by your fiat, to exclude the premise, "God exists," then you have already denied the only answer that matters. After that, there is no answer that's going to happen.

And there we see the irrationality out in the open. You offer the premise - the claim - 'God exists' as EVIDENCE. You know that a claim is not evidence for its own truth. But here you've kissed away your brains. And that's the intellectual rot of supernaturalism.

All I ask is that you answer my question about morality...not on MY terms, but on YOUR OWN. And even on your own terms, it seems you cannot.

I've demonstrated that the existence of any agent - or its commands, wishes, plans or nature - does not entail any moral conclusion.

You are an agent. So your subjectivity, with it's "commands, wishes, plans or nature," according to you "does not entail any moral conclusion."

Got it. Well done. Now, forget this penny-dropping insight and sink back into your confusion. As follows.

Therefore, as I have said, Atheism is amoral and nihiistic. It's utterly incapable of telling us anything at all about moralty -- even why it exists as a phenomenon, since Atheism gives us no reason to suppose it ought to exist at all, since nothing in the natural world corresponds (according to the Materialism, Physicalism or Naturalism essential to supporting Atheism) to morality.

So they answer to your OP above, for you, has to be: "Neither. Morality is a delusion."

And that's what I've said your conclusion had to be, all along.

Theistic moral objectivism is moral subjectivism...

You're assuming the conclusion you want...not proving it. Theism isn't moral subjectivism, by definition. You might say it's "deluded moral objectivism," and no doubt you would; but it clearly isn't any kind of subjectivism.

Nope. 'Agent A says X is morally wrong; therefore (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong' - is a non sequitur fallacy, for any agent A. And this is not to assume moral subjectivity. It's to demonstrate that theistic moral objectivism is incoherent.

PS Just to spell out your fallacy about the amoral or nihilistic conclusion entailed by atheism.

P1 I reject any team's god-claim.
P2 One team claims that (only) its god is the source and measure of morality - of moral rightness and wrongness.
C Therefore, I reject (the existence of) morality - moral rightness and wrongness.

Stroll on.

[Immanuel Can]

I think you should be ashamed.

That, in itself, is a very curious utterance for an Atheist. Why "should" somebody "be ashamed," when his subjective feeling about it is satisfied? There's no reason in Atheism that he "should." As Hume argued, there's no "should" at all.

False. Hume just argued that no is can entail an ought or should - not that there are or can be no oughts or shoulds.

He thought that he would recover the "oughts" and "shoulds" by way of Emotivism. Of course, ethicists generally have tended to point out how shallow and inadequate Emotivist answers are, including Hume's especially. This is why the "is-ought" problem remains, as one philosophy editor, W.D. Hudson has said, "the central problem in (secular) moral philosophy," even today. Hume pointed it out, but never solved it.

Once you deprive the universe of God, of teleological structure and objective purpose, morality vaporizes. In an indifferent universe, nothing genuinely counts as "right" or "wrong," except for temporary and local human purposes which vaporize with the death of any subjective assessor. They are binding to nobody, and the benefits of observing them over some attractive but evil alternative are zero, and the consequences of violating them are zero, so long as one is not caught.

Or, as Dostoevsky is said to have said, and as Nietzsche agreed, "If God is dead, everything is permissible."

You use so much morally-laden, objective-style language in your vituperation. "You should...", you write. And presumably, you want me to believe the behaviour you attribute to me is bad...and objectively so...bad from your subjective perspective, and bad from the perspective you think I also should be sharing.

No - you smuggle in 'objectively so', which begs the question.

I'm not the "smuggler." You are.

You wish people to believe that "shame" is "owed" on account of a certain pattern of action. But nothing in moral subjectivism allows that to mean more than, "Peter doesn't like X, and wants to throw shame-feelings at IC for doing X." But IC has no objective duty to receive these shame-feelings, according to Peter's moral subjectivist view, because IC's subjectivity is fine with X. So Peter is throwing nothing that IC has any obligation to agree with, and IC's not a bad person if he simply dismisses Peter's shame-feelings.

That's what your view -- not mine -- requires me to understand from your accusations and character assassinations: that they're not objectively grounded in anything.

There's no logical contradiction between the following assertions:

1 There are no moral facts, but only moral beliefs, judgements or opinions.
2 Forcing a raped girl to give birth is morally wrong.

As worded? No. But it's not clear what you expect the reader to interpret from the term "morally wrong."

For a subjectivist, "morally wrong" has to mean no more than "Peter's belief, opinion or feeling" (it can't really be a "judgment," in the true sense of that word, because that might imply an objective set of criteria for guilt, which Peter insist cannot be had. And Peter cannot make himself a "judge" of anybody else on a purely subjective basis. But let that be. For now, it can be any of the other three.)

So we must read 2 as "Peter has a belief, opinion or feeling that he doesn't like forcing raped girls to give birth." But that would also have to mean that if Tom, Dick or Harry does like forcing raped girls to give birth, then that is not objectively wrong for them to do. They are not responsible to answer to what Peter likes, or his opinions, or his beliefs about things that are not objectively so.

those who advocate or do it are monsters.

The most this can mean is "Tom, Dick and Harry feel like 'monsters' to Peter." It cannot mean they are monsters, objectively, or even metaphorically. It can only mean that Peter doesn't happen to like them. Peter subjectively assesses them as 'monsters,' but they are not that objectively. Peter is therefore confused in his assessment, since nothing in reality corresponds to it ...according to moral subjectivism.

See how amoral that ends up being?

So why is a moral subjectivist even trying to talk about morality? On his own terms, he knows nothing at all about any such thing. All he knows is his own feelings.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So why is a moral subjectivist even trying to talk about morality? On his own terms, he knows nothing at all about any such thing. All he knows is his own feelings.

PH's [a moral relativist] claim that morality is not objective is grounded on an illusion, thus do not have any credibility to judge whether other moral models are objective or subjective.
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

The Christianity's moral model is also grounded on an illusion,
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

but is is nevertheless objective,
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

Whilst the degree of objectivity of the Christianity's moral model is insignificant, with its overriding pacifist maxims [love all, even enemies], it is the most effective and optimal [net of existing pros over cons] to the current [not necessary in the future] psychological states of the majority.
Based on the threat of Hell, the majority [with exceptions] of Christians would not dare to disobey the commands and threat of God to kill other humans.

On the other hand, for moral relativists like PH, anything goes to the extreme where some will adopt 'genocide' as moral. A moral relativist [by default] has to be morally indifferent to this.

Because the Christianity model is limited, humanity need to explore more effective non-theistic [secular] moral models that are more objective [human based FSK] for the future to cope with the trend of increasing and complex global threats to humanity.

[Peter Holmes]

So why is a moral subjectivist even trying to talk about morality? On his own terms, he knows nothing at all about any such thing. All he knows is his own feelings.

PH's [a moral relativist] claim that morality is not objective is grounded on an illusion, thus do not have any credibility to judge whether other moral models are objective or subjective.
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

The Christianity's moral model is also grounded on an illusion,
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

but is is nevertheless objective,
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707

Whilst the degree of objectivity of the Christianity's moral model is insignificant, with its overriding pacifist maxims [love all, even enemies], it is the most effective and optimal [net of existing pros over cons] to the current [not necessary in the future] psychological states of the majority.
Based on the threat of Hell, the majority [with exceptions] of Christians would not dare to disobey the commands and threat of God to kill other humans.

On the other hand, for moral relativists like PH, anything goes to the extreme where some will adopt 'genocide' as moral. A moral relativist [by default] has to be morally indifferent to this.

Because the Christianity model is limited, humanity need to explore more effective non-theistic [secular] moral models that are more objective [human based FSK] for the future to cope with the trend of increasing and complex global threats to humanity.

Throw crap at the wall and see what sticks. The clueless desperation is obvious. 'Moral subjectivism entails moral relativism'. False. 'Moral subjectivists can't know and say anything about morality, because all they have is feelings.' (Compare: if there are no aesthetic facts, there can be no aesthetic opinions.)

But feelings are part of the mix that goes into the formation of moral values, judgements and opinions. For example, revulsion at the spectacle of a person being roasted alive on a fire, or tortured and murdered on a cross, or enslaved - things of which one team's primitive desert god approves - a visceral response to cruelty can be an important element in morality.

'Ah, but suppose you like witch burning, crucifixion and slavery? Suppose you're not revolted by them, but enjoy them and think they're morally right? If there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, no one can condemn you for having a different opinion. For example, you can't condemn my team's primitive desert god for commanding us to burn witches.' And yet many of us can and do.

Moral objectivists go round and round trying to find a way out of the moral dilemma I pointed out in this OP, and in 'What could make morality objective?'. They want to argue a way out of our moral predicament. But every objectivist argument collapses, for reasons I've been trying to explain.

1 Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. This means that, for example, we can't get to a conclusion about moral rightness or wrongness (or good and evil) from a factual premise, even if the premise is true.

2 All the premises in arguments for moral objectivity are factual, or at least non-moral - because entailment from a moral premise doesn't demonstrate moral objectivity - it just chains moral assertions.

3 Moral assertions, expressing moral opinions are, as it were, 'stand alone' - so that, at the end or bottom of any moral argument, is a moral opinion. And this is what so disturbs moral objectivists: 'This cannot stand! There are moral facts - and I happen to know what they are!'

(No one wants to recognise or admit the moral egotism this requires - or to acknowledge the more than evident scope for righteous cruelty: 'Because (it's a fact that) terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong, it's morally right to force a raped child to give birth.'