What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

"Scientifically speaking, caucasians are taller than asians, but I am not taller than Yao Ming."

I'm sorry sir but no scientist I'd ever wanna know would say that.

A true scientist would instead include the necessary existential quantifiers in his claim and say 'some or most caucasians are taller than asians'.

I am sorry sir, but you are mistaken. The quantifiers "some" or "most" are not necessary.

That is implicit given that we are talking about the median of two overlapping normal distributions.

Some caucasians may be taller than some asians; and some asians may be taller than some caucasians; but in general - most caucasians are taller than most asians.

height.png

[Skepdick]

"Scientifically speaking, caucasians are taller than asians, but I am not taller than Yao Ming."

I'm sorry sir but no scientist I'd ever wanna know would say that.

A true scientist would instead include the necessary existential quantifiers in his claim and say 'some or most caucasians are taller than asians'.

naxalt.jpeg

[promethean75]

"You think you know everything"

Whenever somebody asks me if i think i know everything and i say yes, they always go 'everything?' and then i go everyting

[Skepdick]

"You think you know everything"

Whenever somebody asks me if i think i know everything and i say yes, they always go 'everything?' and then i go everyting

Even when you are the one asking yourself the question?

Must be a boring game knowing what the twist is.

[promethean75]

Nope. Won't work Skep. Say a teacher and a student are standing in front of a group of caucasians and asians, and in that group there is at least one asian who is taller than at least one Caucasian.

If the teacher were to inform the student that 'caucasians are taller than asians', the student would be expected to believe that the one tall asian is actually a caucasian becuz he, like the other Caucasians, is taller than the other Asians.

Clearly that cannot be true.

But if he instead said 'most Caucasians are taller than asians', this would not confuse the student about the identity of the taller asian.

*taps forehead*

[Skepdick]

Nope. Won't work Skep. Say a teacher and a student are standing in front of a group of caucasians and asians, and in that group there is at least one asian who is taller than at least one Caucasian.

If the teacher were to inform the student that 'caucasians are taller than asians', the student would be expected to believe that the one tall asian is actually a caucasian becuz he, like the other Caucasians, is taller than the other Asians.

Clearly that cannot be true.

Why? Works just fine.

Nobody is claiming that NO asian is taller than ANY caucasian. That's false.

Some caucasians are taller than some asians. That's true.
Some asians are taller than some caucasians. That's true.
Most caucasians are taller than most asians. That's true.

But if he instead said 'most Caucasians are taller than asians', this would not confuse the student about the identity of the taller asian.

*taps forehead*

Caucasians are taller than asians means exactly that. "Most caucasians are taller than most asians".

It does NOT mean "NO asian is taller than ANY caucasian"

This is teachable moment and the student should be made aware of probability theory.

Picking a random asian and a random caucasian, more often than not the caucasian will be taller than the asian.
Not always. Just more often than not.

[promethean75]

"Picking a random asian and a random caucasian, more often than not the caucasian will be taller than the asian. Not always. Just more often than not."

Not if time and space are infinite. If they are, at any point in time there has been just as many asians taller than Caucasians as Caucasians taller than Asians. It's like Hilbert's asian hotel bro. Or like that one philosopher who said if u had two spheres, one larger than the other, and even tho it took longer for the larger one to complete a rotation than the smaller one, they will have always completed the same number of rotations if time is infinite.

Does it take Caucasians the same amount of time to rotate as it does asians? That's not important right now. We need to establish whether or not time and space are infinite before we can resolve the dilemma of the taller asian.

[Skepdick]

"Picking a random asian and a random caucasian, more often than not the caucasian will be taller than the asian. Not always. Just more often than not."

Not if time and space are infinite. If they are, at any point in time there has been just as many asians taller than Caucasians as Caucasians taller than Asians. It's like Hilbert's asian hotel bro. Or like that one philosopher who said if u had two spheres, one larger than the other, and even tho it took longer for the larger one to complete a rotation than the smaller one, they will have always completed the same number of rotations if time is infinite.

Does it take Caucasians the same amount of time to rotate as it does asians? That's not important right now. We need to establish whether or not time and space are infinite before we can resolve the dilemma of the taller asian.

Irreleavant.

You put the asian and the caucasian back after you compare their height.

[iambiguous]

Okay, but for those like IC and the Christian God, there's a Scripture. The word of God such that if you are not sure what is moral or immoral you have both the Bible and the ecclesiastics to turn to. You have Judgment Day. You have Heaven and Hell.

And there is absolutely no doubt that morality itself is the embodiment of that Scripture. Of God.

So, how on Earth then could Deism be said to work in the same way?

Be fair, guy. I said: I reckon the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong, as fact. You, as a free will, get to decide whether you'll abide or defy. Whether we're talkin' Jehovah or Allah or Crom, we're talkin' about The Creator of Reality. You wanna pick at differences: I focus on the similarities. We -- theists, deists -- agree the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong. And we all, as free wills, get to decide whether we'll abide or defy.

Come on, henry, you have no Scripture or ecclesiastics to turn to in regard to the Deist God. It's all just what, existentially, you have come to believe about Him "in your head" given your personal experiences, personal relationships, and access to particular knowledge and information. You read this and not that, you listened to this and not that, you watched this and not that. Just like all the rest of us.

But you claim that, as with other religious Deities, the Deist God created Reality...including the human condition.

Again...

"We -- theists, deists -- agree the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong."

So, the Deist God, as with the Christian God, is ultimately behind human morality? He has decided that intuitively -- logically? -- life, liberty and property are to be properly understood by mere mortals only as He understands them Himself?

Sure, I may be misunderstanding you here. But I'm still really, really fuzzy about how, in regard to things like abortion and gun control and other moral conflagrations, you come back to the Deist God for...what?

With IC, it's "what would Jesus do"? With IC, it's the Bible and those YouTube videos. With IC, it's Judgment Day. With IC, it's Heaven or Hell.

A very, very different approach to morality and mortality it seems to me.

Thus...

Look, you choose certain behaviors "Intuitively". Intuitively meaning logically? And either the Deist God in creating the human condition plays a critical role in differentiating right from wrong behaviors among mere mortals, or He doesn't.

No, I don't choose actions intuitively. Why do you lie like that? I use the word intuition very directly and narrowly, in a specific context.

Okay, in regard to the buying and the selling of weapons of mass destruction, note how, in regard to the behaviors you choose, you do connect the dots between intuition, logic and the Deist God.

He does. What do you think the one who designs, creates, and mebbe sustains the whole of reality does decide what constitutes right & wrong means?

Note to others:

You tell me. He seems rather adamant [to me] that, both logically and intuitively, how he has come to understand life, liberty and property is derived from the Deist God. He's just uncertain regarding whether or not all Deists are obligated to share his own frame of mind...or else.

Or else? Well, the parts that IC and others here come back to: Judgment Day.

In fact, that's why IC should be all the more committed to saving his best buddy's soul. That they share the same political prejudices won't mean squat if henry doesn't accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior.

So, instead of "what would Jesus do?", what do Deists put in its place? How close to or far removed from your own political dogma is the Deist God? If you bump into a Deist who is, say, a Communist, are you likely to tell him or her, "well, you're right from your side and I'm right from mine."

Deists, being persons, have the same moral intuition as anyone. Even the commie scum deist knows his life, liberty, and property are his and his alone. Unfortunately, like the murderer, the slaver, the rapist, the thief, the commie scum deist chooses to treat the other guy as he himself would never agree to be treated: as commodity.

Back to that again, of course.

With IC, the commie scum will likely burn in Hell. But what of the Communist who is a Deist: https://www.google.com/search?q=deism+a ... s-wiz-serp

Are Communists scum because the Deist God Himself sees them as scum? Or are they scum to you only because "in your head" you have come existentially to believe that they are.

In other words...

Same God but any and all political ideologies are permitted if it's what you believe "intuitively?

Why do you lie so much? No, the moral intuition that all men, every where and when, share isn't dependent on god-belief or philosophy or politics. You can be an atheist, or even commie scum, and you'll still know, down deep in your marrow, that your life, liberty, and property are yours and yours alone. What bein' an atheist or a commie or a subjectivist or nihilist might do is allow you to rationalize that it's A-OK to commodify the other guy.

So, there may be Deists who, existentially, have come to embrace moral and political value judgments that are all up and down the ideological spectrum. Liberal Deists, conservative Deists, pro-gun Deists, anti-gun Deist, pro-life Deists and pro-choice Deists.

Now, either you believe only those who think like you do are closest to what the Deist God intended for human beings to embrace and embody in their interactions or, instead, it all comes down to what each individual Deist embraces and embodies intuitively...existentially.

Yeah, it's what you say, it's what you believe, it's what you know "in your head".

It's what everyone, includin' you, knows. You know, as fact, your life, liberty, and property are yours.

Sure, "in our heads" we all believe lots of things about morality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Only with objectivists, life, liberty, and property are construed to be a "one size fits all" deal. Thus, "one of us" vs. "one of them"..."my way or the highway".

What's mine had better be yours. Only some are fiercely intent on making it that way in any particular community while others, far more tolerant, are inclined to embrace a "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine" approach to politics: democracy and the rule of law.

Then what? How do you go about demonstrating it reflects the most intuitively sound frame of mind that all rational men and women, if not obligated to embrace, would do so simply because they are rational men and women.

I don't. All this rational this and obligation that is your thing. Free wills have no obligation to act morally any more than free wills have to obligation to keep their naked hands out of camp fires. But there are consequences if you don't.

No, in today's world, in any given human community, there are likely to be moral and political factions. And while some are willing to accept "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the "best of all possible worlds", many objectivists are adamant that only their own value judgments must prevail.

It's everyone's "thing" once they choose to interact in a community where there are conflicting moral and political factions. It's just that some like you factor in God and religion.

As for consequences, back to how IC includes Judgment Day, immortality and salvation, Heaven and Hell for those who don't toe the True Christian line. So, there is either the equivalent of that for Deists or there is not. If you live in a community of Deists and they embrace value judgments all up and down the moral and political spectrum...what of consequences then?

Also, as I noted with IC above:

...millions and millions of people around the globe have no living relationship with the Christian God. Instead, they have one with other Gods. And you tell me how that is not rooted historically and culturally in dasein.

Really, give it a shot. Down through the ages and across the globe different people both as children and as adults encounter what can be experiences that are far, far removed. So, of course some will be Deists some will be Christians, some will be Hindus, some will be Buddhists some will be Shintos some will be Taoists some will be Scientologists some will be atheists some will be all but oblivious to God and religion.

Sure, there are all kinds of traditions, conventions, philosophies, religions, cultures, ideologies, and on and on. And among all the adherents of all those traditions, etc: that down in the bone understanding, that intuition, that their lives, liberties, and properties are theirs and theirs alone. Even when these traditions, etc, and leaders of these traditions, etc preach self-abnegation they know this about themselves.

As I say: all these traditions, conventions, philosophies, religions, cultures, ideologies, they either align with this fact, this natural right, or they don't.[/

Completely avoiding my point, in my view.

Yes, they may see their "traditions, conventions, philosophies, religions, cultures, ideologies" etc., as their own. But how on Earth does that make my point go away? They see what they do as their own given the particular lives that they lived out in particular worlds historically and culturally and experientially.

Why do you suppose that Gods are invented? A moral and political and spiritual font is needed in order that there be a transcending point of view thought to be applicable to all mere mortals. A Creator that is thought to be the author of all "facts", all "natural rights".

I'm tying to get a sense here of just how far removed you are from those here like IC in regard to morality. You and he share many of the same political prejudices. But "in the end" he is going to Heaven, and you are going to Hell if Christianity is the real deal.

I think morally we're on the same page: it's wrong to murder, to slave, to rape, to steal, to defraud, and it's wrong becuz the person who could be murdered, slaved, raped, robbed, defrauded has the same moral claim, the same natural right to his life, liberty, and property as we do to ours. Where we differ: he believes Christ is The Way and I don't; he believes there's an Ultimate Consequence (Heaven or Hell) and I don't.

Okay, fine. Neither one of you [in my view] are willing to explore in depth the gap between what one believes about God and religion "in their head" "here and now" and what one is actually able to demonstrate is fact true about them for all reasonable and virtuous men and women. Let alone the role that dasein plays in all of it.

It's just that, again, IC does have a Scripture to fall back on and you don't. And, with IC, the consequences of not doing the right thing -- the natural thing -- could not be more dramatically different.

On the other hand, I don't understand why the two of you can't explore your views on all of this in a substantive exchange right here. Or have you in the past? What's the big...mystery?

As for this...

“We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall.” J.R.R. Tolkien

Tolkien himself was a devout Catholic. And wasn't he responsible for converting C.S. Lewis to Christianity?

In any event, as IC will point out, they are both in Heaven now. And how exactly did either one of them go about demonstrating that the Christian God does exist beyond a "leap of faith" or going back to "because the Bible says so"?

Isn't his quote above just one more "spiritual contraption" in which words merely define and defend others words?

No, it's an accurate descriptor. We all have the same Source, none of us have the full story, we fill in the blanks as best we can. Me, I'm lazy: I just stick with what we all know and go no further.

Again, that gap between the points I make and the manner in which you completely avoid responding to them. The same Source?!

And because you are lazy you haven't gotten around to examining IC's YouTube videos? Even though your very soul itself [for all of eternity] is at stake? You just insist that "somehow" Deism and Christianity are anchored to the same Source. As though, for all practical purposes, that explains...what exactly?.

Over and over and over again I make it clear that I am an atheist [actually an agnostic] only because "here and now" it seems reasonable to be one. But: I would never argue that a God, the God does not exist. Given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" how on Earth could I possible know that for sure? Let alone demonstrate it. And over and over and over again I make it clear that [polemics aside] I would very much like to bump into someone able to convince me that my own life is not essentially meaningless and purposeless, that I am wrong to be morally fractured and fragmented, that oblivion is not my fate "in the end".

And only a complete idiot in my view would not be worried about going to Hell if, in fact, Hell itself is the real deal. And how do I know that it's not?[/b]

At least you have the possibility of continuing on into the afterlife re the Deist God.

As I recall, you're just not sure about that. Or the Christian bit about salvation..

I personally don't think so. And yes, I'm a complete idiot cuz I'm not worried about it. Que sera, sera.

Based on my own personal experiences, those who take a que sera, sera approach to death are not themselves "here and now" in imminent danger of dying...or they do not have an abundance to things left worth living for.

Still, you do have God in your life. So, nothing can be ruled out right?

the Christian bit about salvation

I don't need saving.

And yet you might be. As long as you can believe in God, there is always that possibility. Otherwise, you can look around at all of the people and the things that you love, know that they will be taken from you for all of eternity and think, "que sera, sera".

"For example, some Deists believe that God never intervenes in human affairs while other Deists believe as George Washington did that God does intervene through Providence but that Providence is "inscrutable." Likewise, some Deists believe in an afterlife while others do not." PBS.

By Crom on His lonely mountain: you finally got one thing right.

If so, then what are the "for all practical purposes" implications of that for Deists in regard to morality?

Intuitively, it is all perfectly reasonably for Deists to believe in the same God but to be completely at odds in regard to things like abortion and gun control?

Is that your claim?

They're no more or less immune to disagreement than Protestants and Catholics (or Protestants and Protestants [or atheists and atheists]).

So, then it really comes down here to what you do not know about the Deist God. In fact, he may "somehow" be keeping track of our lives and those [even other Deists] who don't share you own intuitively logical assessment of life, liberty and property" may well be...punished?

I'm ecumenical.

Interesting. In regard to value judgments, I've often construed that as a kind of "cafeteria morality". You pick and choose what comforts and consoles you and figure that, somehow, in the end, it will be okay with God.

Also, where does ecumenism end and pantheism begin?

Also, according to the Oxford dictionary, ecumenism is "the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world's Christian Churches."

Only, I still root what each of us as individuals does pick and choose as being derived, by and large, existentially from dasein.

And I use it as of worldwide scope or applicability; universal.

Right. As long as in the end that all comes around to how you construe the existential parameters of life, liberty and property. The "worldwide scope and universality" that comes with grasping them "naturally"?

You ought worry more about the practical applications in the here & now. God may allow your ass to sink to Hades (your choice if you do) but a shotgun-toting neanderthal just might be the one to send you on your way (if, in your nihilistic zeal, you get the idea you can piss on his natural rights).

Huh? The whole point of religion for the vast majority of those who practice it "for all practical purposes" is to connect the dots between the behaviors we choose here and now and the fate of our soul there and then. The bit about eternity.

Discuss that with IC, for example.

Then back to you defending "natural rights" as though this were something more than those political prejudices that you picked up existentially given the life you lived.

Rights that "somehow" in your head are "sort of" connected to the Deist God.

As I say: God is the explanation, not salvation.

Okay, you choose the behaviors that you do. Is or is not God the explanation for that? Do you choose behaviors you are convinced God would expect of all those who do grasp things "naturally"?

And then, for all you know, that does result in immortality and salvation?

Better that than oblivion, right?

[iambiguous]

All I can do is to note how, in my own "rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive opinion"

How close to 100% certain are you that your own "rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive opinion" is true?

Exactly what I would expect someone from ILP to ask me.

Is there anyone else here who actually does believe that I am 100% certain of that?

In fact, it is precisely the opposite of what I believe about human morality. Sans sim worlds and dream worlds and solipsism and Matrix "realities", we can be 100% certain that Putin invaded Ukraine. But I challenge anyone here to argue that Putin was either 100% right or 100% wrong to do so.

On the other hand, if there is an omniscient and omnipotent God, wouldn't He be 100% right about it? And, with Judgment Day being the Real Deal, hadn't you best go along with Him?

[Skepdick]

All I can do is to note how, in my own "rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive opinion"

How close to 100% certain are you that your own "rooted existentially in dasein subjunctive opinion" is true?

Exactly what I would expect someone from ILP to ask me.

Is there anyone else here who actually does believe that I am 100% certain of that?

In fact, it is precisely the opposite of what I believe about human morality. Sans sim worlds and dream worlds and solipsism and Matrix "realities", we can be 100% certain that Putin invaded Ukraine. But I challenge anyone here to argue that Putin was either 100% right or 100% wrong to do so.

On the other hand, if there is an omniscient and omnipotent God, wouldn't He be 100% right about it? And, with Judgment Day being the Real Deal, hadn't you best go along with Him?

1. It’s your own damn question.
2. You misunderstood your own damn question.

How close (or far) to 100%?
Doesn’t imply 100%
Any distance is a valid answer.

[Peter Holmes]

Elsewhere, VA argues (strangely) that Christian morality is objective, but with only 0.000001 credibility. It's hard to know where to begin dismantling this kind of idiocy.

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions. And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion. (VA, of course, denies the existence of such facts, which he calls illusions.)

In a way, my OP question has contributed to the conceptual mess. Compare: what could (or does) make physics objective? Answer, there are facts (features of reality) that physics describes pretty successfully - for now. And notice that which or how many people give credence to those physical facts is irrelevant. So the claim that 'intersubjective consensus' constitutes physics knowledge is false.

But, worse still, VA directly equates morality with, say, physics: what could (or does) make morality objective? VA's answer: there are facts (features of reality) that morality describes pretty successfully. But, NB, those facts depend on a morality framework and system of knowledge (fsk), just as physics facts depend on a physics fsk.

So - morality gives us knowledge in exactly the same way that physics gives us knowledge. Only - moral knowledge is a bit less credible than physics knowledge. Maybe 0.743, compared with 0.962 credible.

[Iwannaplato]

Elsewhere, VA argues (strangely) that Christian morality is objective, but with only 0.000001 credibility. It's hard to know where to begin dismantling this kind of idiocy.

What we call objectivity is reliance on facts rather than opinions. And what we call facts are features of reality that are or were the case, independent from opinion. (VA, of course, denies the existence of such facts, which he calls illusions.)

My problem with his negligible objectivity is two fold: 1) his wording is different. He doesn't mention credibility, at least in the first mention of the low objectivity, but rather but

its degree of objectivity is negligible

So we have degrees of objectivity in a specific conclusion/assertion or there a set of morals. The title of his thread is Christianity's Morality is Objective. So, my first issue is: if it is .0000001 objective, it is 99.999etc % something else. It would seem to be subjective. We wouldn't refer to meat or gold as beef or silver if it was 99.99999% the other thing. I think there is also some kind of category confusion in degrees of objectivity for a specific conclusion. 2) The second issue I have is that he won't drop 'objectivity'. If objectivity is actually some kind of intersubjectivity (which I actually agree with) then drop the term objectivity. It's like he want's the gold seal approval of the word objectivity when in fact denying there is a categorical difference.

In a way, my OP question has contributed to the conceptual mess. Compare: what could (or does) make physics objective? Answer, there are facts (features of reality) that physics describes pretty successfully - for now.

Well, if we come at this via science, I am not sure this is so simple. What demonstrates the accuracy of a scientific hypothesis/theory: observations that can be repeated. Science is empirical and least in the main when it comes to accepted conclusions, though other processes are used to get there.

And notice that which or how many people give credence to those physical facts is irrelevant.

I think it is very much which people that gives rises to what are considered facts in physics and how many physicists. Note, I am not saying that physicists can get together and uncreate the Sun by decision. But what we consider facts has to do with the conclusions those people draw. Here the two ways of viewing the word 'fact' is coming up again. But that's not the point I am making. We have no bird's eye view. We can't compare assertions with the list of true things. Some people can manage to compare data regarding bending light and decide that Einstein was right about the curvature of space and so on. In that group of people which and how many definitely plays a role. And I can't go and determine this for myself. And even then, should I be a billionaire, in the end my attempting to confirm/disconfirm by buying a radio telecsope and so on, would end up with me having certain expereience or not.

So the claim that 'intersubjective consensus' constitutes physics knowledge is false.

I'm not sure that's the case. But that could be misleading if it means that the consensus of experts makes the world the way it is. If we view their consensus as causal of what's going on. But if we view is as causal of what is considered knowledge, I can't see any way around that being the case. VA conflates those two, which to some degree some anti-realists do intentionally. I'm not sure he has a handle on it, like the stronger minds in that group would.

But, worse still, VA directly equates morality with, say, physics: what could (or does) make morality objective? VA's answer: there are facts (features of reality) that morality describes pretty successfully. But, NB, those facts depend on a morality framework and system of knowledge (fsk), just as physics facts depend on a physics fsk.

So - morality gives us knowledge in exactly the same way that physics gives us knowledge. Only - moral knowledge is a bit less credible than physics knowledge. Maybe 0.743, compared with 0.962 credible.

The ironic thing is that he is now on a skepticism binge. And I think that is going to hurt his arguments for objective morality. As one tiny example amongst a mass of others, the Pyrrhonian Skeptics did not like circular arguments and formed one of their basic criticisms of much of what gets called knowledge.

And weirdly he's now, without openly asserting it just implicitly working with it, going on the assumption that THE goal is inner peace. Those skeptics were being skeptical in the way they were to achieve inner peace. And nowhere, it seems, did they or VA justify this as THE goal or even as a goal. One of their other precepts was that any belief that can have a counterbelief equally justified is not one to believe. We should suspend belief. And one of the problems with values is that wonderful arguments can be made that the primary goal can be a differeone one: procreation, family, happiness, achievement, love, greatness, security, creativity...and so on.

Their whole enterprise is based on a belief that they should have suspended judgment on. Skepdick was scathing (as usual) about this idea that one must back off from belief and VA said he was confusing different skepticisms. But actually the P skeptics should, by their own rules, have not gone for inner peace.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is Peter upset? Why does he rant and call VA "idiotic," and "wrong"? Why does he indict VA's manifest and manifold inconsistencies?

Manifest Answer: Peter is a tacit moral objectivist who refuses to recognize or to admit he is. He thinks some things, like what VA is saying, is objectively wrong. He thinks he/she is dishonest, illogical, unethical, irrational...and that's BAD. He gets all incensed about it, as you can tell from his rhetoric.

But Peter thinks the world is an accidental product of accidental forces. He thinks he's an accidental product of natural processes that were, themselves, instantiated accidentally. VA subjectively believe her/his views, so they must be as "moral" as anything Peter can possibly conceive...

Obvious Conclusion: practically, subjectivism does not work. Even Peter, its most passionate advocate here, can't practice it, it would seem.

[iambiguous]

Obvious Conclusion: practically, subjectivism does not work.

Let's explore that...

Right now, armed conflict is unfolding between Israel and Hamas. And many of us as subjects have a personal opinion regarding what to make of it. Opinions I believe are rooted existentially in dasein.

Unless, of course, there is in fact a moral font that mere mortals can turn to in order to grasp the conflict objectively. Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?

And the irony of course is that many on both sides are convinced that they are the good guys because they have God on their side.

But it's the same God!

And then the Christians here -- who also worship and adore the same God -- arguing that the only thing that will work is for both the Jews and the Muslims to lay down their arms, accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior and then, like all the rest of us, await the Second Coming.

What is a subject philosophically?

"A subject is a being who has a unique consciousness and/or unique personal experiences, or an entity that has a relationship with another entity that exists outside itself (called an "object"). A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed." DBpedia

A unique consciousness precisely because of those uniquely personal experiences.

God, religion, ideology, deontology, etc., are invented in order to subsume all of these vast and varied historical and cultural assessments into a one-size-fits-all moral conviction that some then come here in order to "preach the Gospel".