To deny moral objectivity is not to be an 'amoralist', an 'anti-moralist' or a moral relativist.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:34 am 1. It is a fact that murder harms people as people suffer through murder. This suffering can be seen as objective in the respect it results in movements connected to pain on behalf of the party and surrounding parties affected. Murder results in a pain reaction with pain as a deficiency in working health. This deficiency in health is objective.
It's universal, this idea that unjustified killing (murder) is wrong. And when such unjustified killing happens, the outrage is universal as well.
2. Dually to say morality is subjective is to make an objective claim that morality is due to personal positioning; this requires that moral is subject to context therefore somethings are appropriate in one context and not appropriate in another furthermore adding to the fact that there is a right and wrong way to act under specific situations. To say morality is subjective, with this being an objective statement, is to argue that a person who does not follow there own subjective experiences, in practicing morality, is immoral. In other terms it is immoral to not follow one's personal situation and act in context to it.
The amoralist, the anti-moralist, the relativist, the subjectivist sez, in effect, morality is just opinion while simultaneously takin' strong moral positions. He'll condemn the rapist, the murderer, the slaver (especially if he himself has been touched by the actions of those people) in the strongest possible terms, but when you probe as to why rape, murder, or slaving is wrong, or point out he has no true undergirding for his anger against the rapist, murderer, or slaver (becuz morality is just opinion), he'll ignore you or his hackles will rise. His amorality, anti-moralism, relativism, subjectivism conflicts with his intuitions about himself and other people.
Fundamentally: he doesn't really believe his own spiel.
Here are two assertions: there are no moral facts; slavery is morally wrong. There is absolutely no contradiction between them.
Lazy response: Ah, but if there are no moral facts, why is slavery morally wrong? (After all, if slavery is morally wrong, then it must be a fact that slavery is morally wrong. Der.)
Remember this: if there are no moral facts, the rightness or wrongness of slavery - or anything else - can only be a matter of judgement, belief or opinion. Notice the conditional. The objectivist claim that there are moral facts incurs the burden of proof. Unmet so far, to my knowledge.