Guess that serves you right for asking questions.
It serves me right that you’ve failed to compile coherent answers to some of life’s easier questions in your double digit years of life, and thus bring only fantasy books to the table?
I succeeded in answering your questions. Failure would be not to answer.
A - No one actually lives/acts like it is subjective since everyone has at least one line in the sand.
B - Objective vs subjective is a misnomer anyway, as really every morality is based on something (which makes it facially objective) and the real question is whether you base your morality on something grounded in reality or not, and whether that something is mutable or not.
C - To treat morality as absolutely (lol) subjective is to obviously special plead about morality.
D - This one is the most important: People feel the need to treat morality as individual and subjective because they mistake being tolerant/kind to one another with never being confrontational about what is right/wrong. It is well-intentioned, but ultimately unhealthy for everyone.
That you can even assess ruin (or conservation) should tell you what you need to know about why we aren’t merely animals.
This is just post-Enlightenment claptrap thanks to a bunch of German and French philosophers mad about WW1, mad about the Church existing, and finding any reason to avoid being wrong about all the bloody insurrections and revolutions that had ravaged Europe.
General suspicion of authority is juvenile at best, because it places the individual above all else.
A pity then, that for all our ability to assess, we cant make the correct choices. 
Ah now THERE is the kicker… what makes a choice CORRECT
1 Like
And that line is different for nearly everyone, even people on the same general side of any given argument. Nuance is a concept that exists, debates on an issue usually aren’t literally binary.
It’s not a misnomer, it’s the difference between believing that you are correct morally because reasons, or understanding inherently that you only think you are correct because reasons.
It’s not, there’s just no objectivity in it to observe in the first place.
The answer to this question is subjective. The only time it isn’t is when you’re asking a fact-based question rooted in mathematics or some similar form of measurable reality.
I’d say the one’s that doesnt destroy the planet and render vast portions of it untenable for our pathetic species.
Doesn’t really matter when, at the end of the day, a red stoplight at an intersection only means one thing.
Whatever you think or believe doesn’t mean anything because I can just refuse you. Which essentially renders you powerless.
The irony of your statement is that, in order for it to be true, it would have to be objective.
1 Like
Is this some kind of tongues you are speaking here?
It means something to me and my beliefs don’t put me in detention, allowing me to continue caring for my family, and that’s all that really matters.
You think you’re being clever but you aren’t.
The idea that something, anything can be objective (again, other than mathematical terms and the like) is a claim that requires evidenced reasoning to support it.
Saying that everything that you think and feel is subjective is not really a claim, more a statement of the obvious, unless you believe your morals were bestowed upon you at some point by an objective authority or entity (God).
So the real irony here is that everything you think and believe being subjective is really the only objective element of this exchange.
No, this is text on a computer screen.
I don’t think I’m being clever. You are incorrect.
I reject your statement. It is not obvious. And even if it was obvious, it doesn’t compel me to heed it.
Now what?
That people have different lines doesn’t support a whimsical moral framework, quite the opposite in fact.
You do realize that presuppositional arguments like this don’t work right?
This doesn’t prove it isn’t special pleading, you’re just trying to define-away a possibility (that objective morality can’t exist) via axiom, despite that axiom itself being objective and rigid (by definition).
This is why subjectivity arguments are incoherent. You have to claim all morals are subjective while relying on a singular objective statement, with zero justification for the disconnect. Either metaphysical statements of morality must be subjective (as you contend) and you need a special explanation for your axiom, or your axiom is wrong.
Cop-out answers don’t cease to be cop-out answers just because you demand everyone accept your priors.
Destroy and untenable are doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Well that’s a relief.
Now I move on to interacting with different posters because you ceased to be interesting.
That’s exactly what it supports.
They do work, it’s your opinion that they don’t because it would mean you lose your foothold in the argument of objective vs subjective.
Climate denier 
No. Anyone claiming subjectivity while having hard lines in the sand is either being self-deceptive (because they insist things are subjective while having a rigid foundation, and just ignore this contradiction) or are outright lying about morality being subjective.
I don’t know of a single person that treats something serious like sexual assault, or theft, or murder, as a mere preference to avoid like not eating asparagus.
This doesn’t even make sense. You’re arguing from the presupposition that your axiom is simply correct, without support. Axioms by their very definition are either accepted or rejected and there’s literally no reason for anyone to presuppose all morality is subjective when such a presupposition is itself not subjective.
If your axiom fails recursion, it is inherently incoherent. Moral subjectivity is incoherent when it demands all things be treated necessarily as subjective.
Ah yes… poking at an unbounded qualitative assertion like “destroy” and “untenable” means I don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change…
/headdesk
You really need to learn how to argue without relying on Occupy Democrat memes. You sound like a boomer.
1 Like
How does a foothold exist if everything is subjective?
Is your view of the climate now an objective truth?
3 Likes
As already stated, some things are not left to subjectivity.
2 + 2 = 4
“My view” of the climate is basically just piggybacking off of scientific fact, so it’s about as close to objective truth as we humans are able to perceive.
So why is your axiom “All morality is subjective” not left to subjectivity, but all morality is?
It is, but then as well, you stating that my statement of all morality being subjective is subjective, is also subjective.
So it’s a little bit easier to just point at the entire thing and say it’s subjective, instead of a needless 30 posts going up the chain of subjectivity clauses.
This is a hand waving fallacy.
There is no such requirement that all meta physical statements about morals have to be subjective, for morals themselves to be subjective.
Because the statement is about morality. It is not itself a moral. So that doesnt even follow your argument.
1 Like
By whom? Under what authority?
So, an authority, then?