Deviancy in subjective morality

[bluethread]

It has been proposed that morality is subjective and is established over time as certain behaviors are deemed to be counter productive by consensus. If that is indeed the case, then don't deviants provide an important public service by helping to define the limits of acceptable behavior and affecting social change. Given that progressives seem to believe that current morality is always superior to previous morality, aren't today's deviants to be respected as brave pioneers for engaging in antisocial behaviors that may very well become the norm tomorrow?

[Divine Insight]

So contrary to your opinions The Bible is not the arrogance of men, but in truth it is the Words of God.

Quoting from the very book in question does not constitute proof or even evidence that the Bible is true. To the contrary, all you've done is demonstrate that the Bible claims to be the word of God. But who doesn't' already know that?

I reject the Bible as being nothing more than the arrogant opinions of underhanded and immoral scam artists. Until you can prove otherwise please don't bother citing or quoting from that immoral book again. Especially in a futile effort to try to claim that it is the word of God simply because it says so.

Thank you.

[bluethread]

Ok, we'll use the term feelings. You are presuming that all morality is based on feelings. So, murder is not wrong, as long as it feels right?

And objectivists presume that all morality is not based on feelings but external facts. But we are not here to argue that whether subjectivism is true or not, but to understand subjectivism, right? So on to your question, yes, bear in mind that feeling right here mean morally right, as opposed to feeling nice.

Please elaborate. What makes something "feel" right?

However, you just said, "It is just what it feels like that matters." What is the proper way for establishing public acceptance. If the public accepts slavery, opposition to abortion, the execution of homosexuals and other things that you think are immoral, are they moral due to public acceptance?

As with all things subjective, that depends on who you are asking. Since you are asking me, the answer is: no, they are immoral because I think they are immoral, and not acceptable by me.

Ok, is that the argument you use, or do you base it on something else?

However, you began this post by saying, "It is just what it feels like that matters." Do you still hold to that, or is it instinct, upbringing and other social conditioning.

I don't think I have to pick one over the other at all. How I feel is the result of a combination of instinct and social conditioning.

I understand the instinct thing, that is what we have been discussing before. However, social conditioning seems to come in two forms, indoctrination and acquisition. If it is indoctrination, isn't that the acceptance of something as objective. If it is acquisition, how does one decide on what basis something is acquired? Isn't that a combination of indoctrination and instinct?

Either way, how can one then say that slavery, opposition to abortion, the execution of homosexual and other things are wrong. On what basis does one fault such a society? It is established by public acceptance, right?

On personal feelings, if you are asking me; on consensus, if you are asking a group of us. If slavery, opposition to abortion, the execution of homosexual is established by public acceptance, the obviously said society would not say those things are wrong. My society feels otherwise would say they are wrong.

That brings us back to the OP. What is to be done with the anarchist, who does not accept consensus, and holds that his subjective views are just as valid as those of anyone else? What is the justification for requiring him to abide by the subjective morality of the society?

It is also not immoral in anything but your view, correct?

Triple negatives! Does that simplifies to "it is immoral only in my view?" Slavery is immoral in my view sure, but also immoral in other people's view. Slavery is not immoral or moral outside of people's view.

However, is that the argument, or is it justified as something that is self evident, as Jefferson does in the DOI?

Not if there is no such thing as objective morality. If society is an admixture of subjective and objective morality, then I would agree with that.

I would say society is an admixture of subjectivists and objectivists. Morality is either subjective or it isn't, it is never mixed.

Never? Some of my morality is subjective and some is objective. The old, but that's just me thing. Not that this thread is about me.

Here is aother analogy: the world is filled with a mix of Christians and non Christians. Christians thinks we are all created by the Christian God, non Christians thinks otherwise. Either Christianity is correct, or it is incorrect. The scenario where some of us are created by God, while other of us are not created, would never be true.

That is not an example of morality. That is an example of a difference regarding the nature of thing. Morality, as I understand it, is about what should and should not do. Some things may be expected of/by everybody and some things maybe only expected of/by some.

I did not say that I see morality as objective. I am just making comparisons in an attempt to understand how subjective morality works in a society.

Ok, I assumed you are an objectivist, have you decided which side you support?

As I have eluded to, I think there is both subjective and objective morality. I see how both can work together, total objective morality is possible, but a bit difficult to define and total subjective morality, well, I am just trying to figure out how that would work.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't some moral standards be objective and others subjective?

With moral subjectivism define along the lines of morality is mind-dependent and objectivism defined as morality is mind-independent, is it enough to say they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive?

Only if one is totally rational or totally mindless. Though subjectivists might like to see themselves as totally rational and objectivists as totally mindless, I think this is just arrogant delusion. However, if they can show me how they create something by reason alone, I am willing to listen.

That is my reason for asking how that works in a society. On what basis does one argue for one moral standard over another?

How do you argue any opinion? By finding common ground and start from there. Rationality would be a typical common ground between people, no?

Rationality may be accepted as the rules of the of the game, but rationalism is not. Even if it were, there are objective rationalists and subjective rationalists. In fact, if on accepts rationality as the rules of the game, that is setting an objective standard by which to judge things.

So, someone arguing from subjective morality can not honestly say anything is right or wrong unless they first establish a consensus, right?

No, do you need to establish a consensus before you can say person X is beautiful? Having said that you do have to have a consensus from judges to get person X to win a beauty contest. Substitute "X is beautiful" with "murder is immoral," and "X winning a beauty contest" with "making murder illegal."

Again you are comparing apples and oranges, beauty is a state of being, not an action. A beauty contest judge is generally not making a moral judgment, unless it is immoral to not be beautiful.

Then one would have to reach a consensus regarding rationality first. Didn't you begin this post by saying, "It is just what it feels like that matters."? Wouldn't that make rationality just a ruse for making people feel better? That would make rationality nothing more than sophistry.

What it feels like is about what is morally right, appealing to rationality is about convinging others that it is morally right. The two doesn't conflict at all.

The conflict is not between feelings and reason, it's between "just what it feels like" and reason. That is an exclusive statement, unless you are saying reasoning is "just what it feels like". I find that people usually do not speak of reasoning in that way.

Obama doesn't seem to think so. However, if my subjective morality is as good as your subjective reality, "It is the right thing to do." is a meaningless argument. The counter to that is, "It is not." Followed by, "'Tis to." Then on and on until someone declares war.

Right you are. You are getting the hang of it. As war is exactly what we see through out history, I would use that as evidence that moral subjectivism is indeed accurate in describing reality.

However, "It is the right thing to do" is really an appeal to objective morality, not subjective morality. If it is used in subjective morality, it is just a way of saying, my subjective morality is right and yours is wrong. Are you saying, contrary to the popular argument, that subjective morality is what is required for world peace?

[bluethread]

@ Bluethread,

Consider the following:

The United States of America stands for democratic FREEDOM. Freedom of individuals to live their own lives as they see fit (within the secular laws that are in place to protect the citizens of the state).

Without getting into the several things that you appear to be presenting as absolutes in the quote above, consider the following, "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . " This is a statement of objective morality. However, this is not a thread about objective morality, but subjective morality.

[Bust Nak]

Please elaborate. What makes something "feel" right?

Why? You already know exactly how it feels. Someone falls over, tell me it doesn't feels right to help him up.

Ok, is that the argument you use, or do you base it on something else?

Depends who I am trying to convince, I need to find common grounds with that person first.

I understand the instinct thing, that is what we have been discussing before. However, social conditioning seems to come in two forms, indoctrination and acquisition. If it is indoctrination, isn't that the acceptance of something as objective. If it is acquisition, how does one decide on what basis something is acquired?

Imagine it was your own children, how do you deside whether to teach them to be honest or dishonest? I would do it based on what will be best for the future of my child.

That brings us back to the OP. What is to be done with the anarchist, who does not accept consensus, and holds that his subjective views are just as valid as those of anyone else?

I keep telling you: depends on what said "anarchist" wants to do. Is he a visionary or a villian?

What is the justification for requiring him to abide by the subjective morality of the society?

That what he is doing is wrong is enough justification. The question is, is he wrong? And that depends.

However, is that the argument, or is it justified as something that is self evident, as Jefferson does in the DOI?

I am not sure what I was suppose to be arguing for or justifying exactly? I am telling you what subjectivism means.

Never? Some of my morality is subjective and some is objective. The old, but that's just me thing. Not that this thread is about me.

Do some objects falls because of curvature in space and other objects falls because of a classical force?

That is not an example of morality. That is an example of a difference regarding the nature of thing. Morality, as I understand it, is about what should and should not do. Some things may be expected of/by everybody and some things maybe only expected of/by some.

But we are talking about the nature of morality. The nature of what should and should not do. The nature of things we expect others to do. That some expect X and others expect Y, is not directly related to the nature of morality, the same way object X falls to the ground while object Y stays in orbit around Earth, is not about the nature of gravity.

As I have eluded to, I think there is both subjective and objective morality. I see how both can work together, total objective morality is possible, but a bit difficult to define and total subjective morality, well, I am just trying to figure out how that would work.

Lets see if I can convince you it has to be one of the other.

Only if one is totally rational or totally mindless. Though subjectivists might like to see themselves as totally rational and objectivists as totally mindless, I think this is just arrogant delusion. However, if they can show me how they create something by reason alone, I am willing to listen.

I am talking about feelings. One doesn't need to be all that rational to feel, all you do need a level of sentience to feel.

Rationality may be accepted as the rules of the of the game, but rationalism is not. Even if it were, there are objective rationalists and subjective rationalists. In fact, if on accepts rationality as the rules of the game, that is setting an objective standard by which to judge things.

Sure. And that's a good thing to have an objective standard as common ground to argue subjective feelings.

Again you are comparing apples and oranges, beauty is a state of being, not an action. A beauty contest judge is generally not making a moral judgment, unless it is immoral to not be beautiful.

You are opening a new can of worms here. Is beauty a state of being? Is beauty a property of an object, or a value assigned by a subject?

I would say I am comparing apples with apples. Both beauty and morality is in the eye of the beholder. What is beautiful to one person, is not beautiful to another, just like morality. A person is beautful because someone thinks he is beautful, not because the person has the property of beauty.

The conflict is not between feelings and reason, it's between "just what it feels like" and reason. That is an exclusive statement, unless you are saying reasoning is "just what it feels like". I find that people usually do not speak of reasoning in that way.

I don't understand. What is the distinction you are making between "feelings" and "just what it feels like?"

However, "It is the right thing to do" is really an appeal to objective morality, not subjective morality. If it is used in subjective morality, it is just a way of saying, my subjective morality is right and yours is wrong.

It saying my opinion is better than yours and people should listen to me and ignore you. What of it?

Are you saying, contrary to the popular argument, that subjective morality is what is required for world peace?

No, I am saying subjective morality is. I already told you subjectivism is not something that can be put into action, it's not an ideology or a way of life. It's not a solution to a problem, it is a fact, a description of reality.

[Lionofthetribeofjudah]

I reject the Bible as being nothing more than the arrogant opinions of underhanded and immoral scam artists.

Honestly, you cannot believe that you are the first person to ever speak against God and his word. In every kingdom that has ever existed there has been people that have spoken evil against God and his holy prophets. Those people and kingdoms are dead and gone but the bible is still here... I wonder why that is... The fact of the matter is while you accuse the holy men of God of being arrogant and scam artist, you are the one who is displaying pride, arrogance, and simplicity. I do not need to provide proof for an unbeliever of the validity of God's word, even though the proof of its truth is overwhelming. You believe that you have rejected God but in truth God has rejected you.

[Divine Insight]

you are the one who is displaying pride, arrogance, and simplicity.

You are new here. These types of uncivil personal accusations are not permitted on this forum. I encourage you to read the forum rules.

I do not need to provide proof for an unbeliever of the validity of God's word.

On a debate forum this is precisely what you must do if this is your claim.

You believe that you have rejected God but in truth God has rejected you.

I don't believe any such thing. To the contrary I actually believe in God (just not the God of the ancient Hebrew barbarians). And I am confident that I am in perfect harmony with God.

I don't fall for the extremely negative and degrading accusations made by every Tom, Dick, or Harry who claim that their evil demonic God has "rejected me".

Personally I think this is just wishful thinking on your part.

Besides, I've read the Christian Biblical Fairy Tale. According to their superstar character named Jesus my destiny to Seventh Heaven has been guaranteed by HIS WORD, I cannot be condemned lest Jesus be a liar. Not only that but according to Jesus my destiny has always been in my own hands. I neither need to believe in Jesus or his words. According to him I am my own salvation.

So apparently, in my case, it doesn't really matter whether Christianity is a fairy tale or not, either way it has me destined for eternal life in paradise.

And your wishful thinking that the Biblical God has rejected me is nothing more than derogatory thinking on your behalf. Obviously Jesus Christ Superstar doesn't agree with you.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 43 by Lionofthetribeofjudah]

The general consensus should NEVER be considered as being right or wrong in a God fearing society if this determination is based purely on the opinions of the masses, meaning that is accepted as fact that most people think this way, and not on the written words of GOD. The scriptures are clear in the understanding that we need to follow GOD and not our own minds or a multitude. Read Exodus 23:2, Proverbs 3:5-6, Ecclesiasticus 5:2, Jeremiah 17:9

Why should majority opinion prevail over the opinion of the individual, especially when all the individual need do is write down their own opinions and views on reality and then declare then to have been derived from God? Exodus 23:2, Proverbs 3:5-6, Ecclesiastes 5:2, Jeremiah 17:9 were ALL written by the hand of man. Once written, all that remains is to convince the gullible that these works represent the Will of God. And when it comes to the gullible, there never seems to be a shortage.

[bluethread]

Please elaborate. What makes something "feel" right?

Why? You already know exactly how it feels. Someone falls over, tell me it doesn't feels right to help him up.

Not to everybody. There are many people who feel indifferent to helping others up. By the way, EMS procedure says that one should not help someone up who has fallen.

Ok, is that the argument you use, or do you base it on something else?

Depends who I am trying to convince, I need to find common grounds with that person first.

Then, let's set aside the argument of personal preference and focus on persuasive arguments.

I understand the instinct thing, that is what we have been discussing before. However, social conditioning seems to come in two forms, indoctrination and acquisition. If it is indoctrination, isn't that the acceptance of something as objective. If it is acquisition, how does one decide on what basis something is acquired?

Imagine it was your own children, how do you deside whether to teach them to be honest or dishonest? I would do it based on what will be best for the future of my child.

I am not addressing the why, but the how. Generally, people indoctrinate their children, based on the objective moral, don't lie. Later, that may be nuanced by the parents' subjective morality, but that is a matter of one person imposing their morality onto another person. DI says this should never happen. What do you think?

That brings us back to the OP. What is to be done with the anarchist, who does not accept consensus, and holds that his subjective views are just as valid as those of anyone else?

I keep telling you: depends on what said "anarchist" wants to do. Is he a visionary or a villian?

He wants to do something that society does not approve of. Society rarely knows who is a visionary and who is a villain. That is generally determined after the fact. The anarchists in Seattle feel it is right to break windows and steal stuff to protest income inequality.

What is the justification for requiring him to abide by the subjective morality of the society?

That what he is doing is wrong is enough justification. The question is, is he wrong? And that depends.

That is a problem with subjective morality. Since what is wrong is subjective, it is not enough to just say it is wrong. It must be backed up by something else, and that something else is also subjective.

However, is that the argument, or is it justified as something that is self evident, as Jefferson does in the DOI?

I am not sure what I was suppose to be arguing for or justifying exactly? I am telling you what subjectivism means.

Jefferson states in the DOI, "We hold these truths to be self evident . . . ". The justification for abolishing slavery was not that it was the view of some, but that being "created equal" was "self evident". Is that an acceptable argument in a society with subjective morality, as DI thinks the societies in these United States are? Without something being "self evident", what made the abolitionist view superior to the proslavery view?

That is not an example of morality. That is an example of a difference regarding the nature of thing. Morality, as I understand it, is about what should and should not do. Some things may be expected of/by everybody and some things maybe only expected of/by some.

But we are talking about the nature of morality. The nature of what should and should not do. The nature of things we expect others to do. That some expect X and others expect Y, is not directly related to the nature of morality, the same way object X falls to the ground while object Y stays in orbit around Earth, is not about the nature of gravity.

You appear to be arguing moral determinism. That is a form of objective morality, not subjective morality. The fact that objects within the earth's atmosphere fall unless an upward force greater than the force of earth's gravity and atmosphere is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of physics. One can not say that is morally right or wrong. Whether one should let go of an object and let it fall, that is a moral question. A choice is involved, that is one of the factors that makes it a moral question. For example, there is nothing moral or immoral about falling off of a cliff. However, there is a moral question regarding standing on or jumping off of a cliff.

As I have eluded to, I think there is both subjective and objective morality. I see how both can work together, total objective morality is possible, but a bit difficult to define and total subjective morality, well, I am just trying to figure out how that would work.

Lets see if I can convince you it has to be one of the other.

Only if one is totally rational or totally mindless. Though subjectivists might like to see themselves as totally rational and objectivists as totally mindless, I think this is just arrogant delusion. However, if they can show me how they create something by reason alone, I am willing to listen.

I am talking about feelings. One doesn't need to be all that rational to feel, all you do need a level of sentience to feel.

Rationality may be accepted as the rules of the of the game, but rationalism is not. Even if it were, there are objective rationalists and subjective rationalists. In fact, if on accepts rationality as the rules of the game, that is setting an objective standard by which to judge things.

Sure. And that's a good thing to have an objective standard as common ground to argue subjective feelings.

Now, we are back to feelings. Hitler felt right about killing Jews, homosexuals and the infirm. However, even they did not go with "it feels right", but followed the philosophy of eugenics.

Again you are comparing apples and oranges, beauty is a state of being, not an action. A beauty contest judge is generally not making a moral judgment, unless it is immoral to not be beautiful.

You are opening a new can of worms here. Is beauty a state of being? Is beauty a property of an object, or a value assigned by a subject?

I would say I am comparing apples with apples. Both beauty and morality is in the eye of the beholder. What is beautiful to one person, is not beautiful to another, just like morality. A person is beautful because someone thinks he is beautful, not because the person has the property of beauty.

The conflict is not between feelings and reason, it's between "just what it feels like" and reason. That is an exclusive statement, unless you are saying reasoning is "just what it feels like". I find that people usually do not speak of reasoning in that way.

I don't understand. What is the distinction you are making between "feelings" and "just what it feels like?"

I am making a distinction between reason and feelings. Reason is usually based on premises and logic. Feelings are more related to one's comfort level. A good example of the difference is first responders. It feel right to run away from danger, but they run toward danger based on reason.

However, "It is the right thing to do" is really an appeal to objective morality, not subjective morality. If it is used in subjective morality, it is just a way of saying, my subjective morality is right and yours is wrong.

It saying my opinion is better than yours and people should listen to me and ignore you. What of it?

That's all well and good for personal morality, but social morality takes more than that. It requires a persuasive argument and/or personality.

Are you saying, contrary to the popular argument, that subjective morality is what is required for world peace?

No, I am saying subjective morality is. I already told you subjectivism is not something that can be put into action, it's not an ideology or a way of life. It's not a solution to a problem, it is a fact, a description of reality.

Well, though I admit it is not a solution to a problem, there are people who insist that ethical subjectivism is the preferable way to establish social morality. The problem is that for the ethical subjectivist everyone else is a deviant. Therefore, whatever the social morality is, it is objectionable to the ethical subjectivist to some degree. This means that deviancy is not so much morally wrong, but simply out of style.

The main proponents of ethical subjectivism, at least currently, are the social progressives. However, this appears to be an oxymoron, because as society moves toward one set of moral standards, it moves away from another. Therefore, it is only progressive for those who hold to the morality of those who agree with the first set of moral standards. As the prevalent moral standards "progress", ethical subjectivism becomes less useful and deviancy moves from just being out of style to being reprehensible, ie politically incorrect. So, it appears to me that ethical subjectivism is just a tool for changing moral standards and not a sound basis for establishing moral standards.

[Bust Nak]

Why? You already know exactly how it feels. Someone falls over, tell me it doesn't feels right to help him up.

Not to everybody. There are many people who feel indifferent to helping others up.

So? As with everything subjective, it depends on who I ask, and I am talking to you. I am betting you know exactly how it feels. Go on, tell me you feel indifferent to helping others. I want to point out again that I am not talking about feeling good about yourself for helping someone, but feeling that it is right to help someone. And if you do tell me you don't know what feeling right is, then I can no more explain it you than I can explain what sweet taste like to someone who haven't experienced it.

By the way, EMS procedure says that one should not help someone up who has fallen.

Sure, I'll bear that in mind.

Then, let's set aside the argument of personal preference and focus on persuasive arguments.

I am not sure what you need persuading on exactly. I thought you just wanted to understand subjecivism, as opposed to be convinced of it. I could try that too, if you like.

I am not addressing the why, but the how. Generally, people indoctrinate their children, based on the objective moral, don't lie.

People generally indoctrinate their children, based on their morality, don't lie. But what's made you say don't lie is objective?

Later, that may be nuanced by the parents' subjective morality, but that is a matter of one person imposing their morality onto another person. DI says this should never happen. What do you think?

I think I have a moral duty do whatever is right, and that include imposing morality onto another.

He wants to do something that society does not approve of. Society rarely knows who is a visionary and who is a villain. That is generally determined after the fact. The anarchists in Seattle feel it is right to break windows and steal stuff to protest income inequality.

But that doesn't tell me if I approve of him or not. If I approve of him, then he is free to do what he wants. If I do not, then he must be stopped.

That is a problem with subjective morality.

It's not a problem, it's a feature.

Since what is wrong is subjective, it is not enough to just say it is wrong. It must be backed up by something else, and that something else is also subjective.

Why not? Is it not enough just to say Jazz music is better than rap? Does it need backing up with something objective before you can state your preference?

Jefferson states in the DOI, "We hold these truths to be self evident . . . ". The justification for abolishing slavery was not that it was the view of some, but that being "created equal" was "self evident." Is that an acceptable argument in a society with subjective morality, as DI thinks the societies in these United States are?

As with all things subjective. It depends on who you ask. I don't need Jefferson to justify himself at all, I happen to already think that people should not be discriminated by race, gender or age.

Without something being "self evident", what made the abolitionist view superior to the proslavery view?

It depends on who you ask. Since you are asking me, that it matches closely with my opinion, is what made it superior.

You appear to be arguing moral determinism. That is a form of objective morality, not subjective morality.

Don't know what gave you that impression. What I am telling you is typical of moral subjectivism. It states moral statements have truth values and is about the jugdement of people, i.e. mind-dependant. It does not say we ought to do X, it does not prescribe or advice, it describes the nature of morality and nothing more.

The fact that objects within the earth's atmosphere fall unless an upward force greater than the force of earth's gravity and atmosphere is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of physics.

And in the same way, the nature of morality, is not a matter of choice, it's a matter of philosophy. It either is objective, or it is subjective. No choice involved at all.

One can not say that is morally right or wrong. Whether one should let go of an object and let it fall, that is a moral question. A choice is involved, that is one of the factors that makes it a moral question. For example, there is nothing moral or immoral about falling off of a cliff. However, there is a moral question regarding standing on or jumping off of a cliff.

Sure. Again, I am telling you what is, not what should be. There are any number of ways to tell you the same thing: morality IS subjective, like you are saying here, it is different to a statement of what should/ought to be. It is not a moral statement, not did I ever implied or even hinted such a thing. It is a statement about the nature of morality. A statement that I believe to be factually true.

Now, we are back to feelings. Hitler felt right about killing Jews, homosexuals and the infirm. However, even they did not go with "it feels right", but followed the philosophy of eugenics.

Eactly. Remember what I said eariler? What killing Jews feels like is about whether it is morally right or not, appealing to eugenics is about convinging others that it is morally right.

I am making a distinction between reason and feelings. Reason is usually based on premises and logic. Feelings are more related to one's comfort level. A good example of the difference is first responders. It feel right to run away from danger, but they run toward danger based on reason.

Sure, but I am not sure why you need to bring that distinction up. I haven't implied reasons and feelings are the same. I stated clearly that one doesn't need to be rational to feel.

That's all well and good for personal morality, but social morality takes more than that. It requires a persuasive argument and/or personality.

Society needs a consensus, a collective of personal opinion. There are any number of ways of achieving that. Voting is how we do it typically.

Well, though I admit it is not a solution to a problem, there are people who insist that ethical subjectivism is the preferable way to establish social morality.

I don't think I've ever met such people. Every subjectivist I've came accross knows what subjectivism is, and hence know it is not something you can put into practice.

The problem is that for the ethical subjectivist everyone else is a deviant. Therefore, whatever the social morality is, it is objectionable to the ethical subjectivist to some degree. This means that deviancy is not so much morally wrong, but simply out of style.

You keep saying the problem with subjectivism is such and such, those are not problems at all. At least no more a problem than gravity making objects fall is a problem. A problem implies that it needs to be fixed. Instead I would say things falling is a feature of gravity.

The main proponents of ethical subjectivism, at least currently, are the social progressives. However, this appears to be an oxymoron, because as society moves toward one set of moral standards, it moves away from another. Therefore, it is only progressive for those who hold to the morality of those who agree with the first set of moral standards. As the prevalent moral standards "progress", ethical subjectivism becomes less useful and deviancy moves from just being out of style to being reprehensible, ie politically incorrect. So, it appears to me that ethical subjectivism is just a tool for changing moral standards and not a sound basis for establishing moral standards.

Useful? A tool? Basis for establishing moral standards? What you are saying here is totally alien to me. Subjectivism is not something that can be put into practice. Perharps you can point me to these proponents you have in mind?

[dianaiad]

I reject the Bible as being nothing more than the arrogant opinions of underhanded and immoral scam artists.

Honestly, you cannot believe that you are the first person to ever speak against God and his word. In every kingdom that has ever existed there has been people that have spoken evil against God and his holy prophets. Those people and kingdoms are dead and gone but the bible is still here... I wonder why that is... The fact of the matter is while you accuse the holy men of God of being arrogant and scam artist, you are the one who is displaying pride, arrogance, and simplicity. I do not need to provide proof for an unbeliever of the validity of God's word, even though the proof of its truth is overwhelming. You believe that you have rejected God but in truth God has rejected you.

Moderator Comment

Be careful, when responding to posts in this forum, to address what is written IN the post, and not the writer of it. Negative personal comments are not only discourteous, they derail the conversation...and they are against the rules.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.