A few responses...
PavlovianModel146 wrote:Right, so you back up your subjective statement with, "Reasons," but guess what, the reasons themselves are also subjective.
Try to digest the following: Some things are not subjective. Math, scientific facts are not subjective. Reasons, likewise, are not subjective.
It's quite simple. So, why do you think a human has a right to life? I.e., why is your opinion correct? Because as you know, your opinion here could be wrong. Why do you think the Golden Rule is a good rule? Are you saying that the negative emotional impact on the family who's member you killed is just a matter of your opinion, or do you think they actually feel that way?
How do we weigh reasons in favor of something versus reasons against something?
Welcome to philosophy. Huge question...
for something to be morally objectively true you would need the agreement of every single individual moral agent in the Universe, at a minimum.
That's just wrong. Please keep in mind these important distinctions that... I honestly don't even know how long I've been harping on them... intersubjectivity is not objectivity.
iambiguous wrote:Yes, theoretically, every single possible variable could be factored into the pages of the engineering manual but, then, if that were possible "out in the world" of actual race cars going around and around the track, the optimal car would be winning every race
Exactly right. And that is what happens every single fucking time.
iambiguous wrote:Really, regarding the science of race cars, how do you gauge if it is "correct" if you don't take the car off the pages, out of the garage and down to the track? Is there a car that would be fastest on all tracks and in all weather conditions or would there only be one fastest car per each juncture of variables?
How many times should I have to repeat myself for you? Scientists do tests to see if they've gotten the science right... the tests don't make the science right, they just verify it. The car with rain tires will be faster and more controlable in rainy conditions---no doubt. And just as with morality, we're not arguing for a universal principle.
OH wrote:No, but we don't throw up our hands and say some forms of cancer are just beyond science's purview. There's a method to tackle them. How does prudentiality apply to fundamental values?
It's quite obvious that consequentialists have a method that applies to all situations. What makes a situation tough is knowing what the consequences are... not whether consequences are important.
OH wrote:Some things may cause more suffering than alternatives but should still be done because it is important to fight the good fight.
You're just begging the question again. The consequentialist is going to understand the virtues, the rules, and the just war by teh consequences. If you think they miss something, then please, say what it is.
OH wrote: Consequentialism and deontology conflict with virtue ethics in that they make no demands of intention or character.
As I said before, that's just simply false. Consequentialits demand that your intention is to maximize utility (for example), and that your character inculcate the virtues that are virtues just because they maximize utility. There isn't a consequentialist alive who has ever said, "Just guess"... or "be cowardly and hope it works out for the better". Again, if you think there's something left out, then explain what it is.
I like cherries, because they're objectively soft and sweet and juicy. Now my liking cherries is objective fact. What's left to subjectivity?
Your reasons to like cherries are subjective... unless you're trying to tell me why I should like cherries.
Contextual is not the same as (culturally) relative unless the culture's view of killing is part of the context. I don't think extracultural morality makes sense, personally - I don't believe that it's up to everyone to make up morality as they go along, nor do I think morality is something that's discovered, like new planets or chemical processes. I think that morality is a society's way of realising its vision of how people should be guided by common values. Those values and visions are entirely products of human minds interacting - and responding to their (objective) environment. But mind-dependent they are.
I agree with this. Morality is mind-dependent, in the way that any perceptual experience (of a tree, or whatever) is mind-dependent. You don't see a tree without eyes, etc. That doesn't mean we just make it up ex nihilo. That's why I think the distinction between subject-dependent and subjective is important. So this may be our common ground, at last.