A few responses…
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?
Welcome to philosophy. Huge question…
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.
Exactly right. And that is what happens every single fucking time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your reasons to like cherries are subjective… unless you’re trying to tell me why I should like cherries.
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.