The only objective truth about all subjects is the universality of subjectivity.
objective truth: response-independent, not mind-independent (in other words, it’s about minds, but if a mind disagrees, the mind diverges from reality)
subjectivity: lived experience of personhood
What is your point?
You’re arguing that the only objective truth we can claim is that all subjects possess subjectivity—that lived experience is universal among conscious beings. This reframes objectivity not as detached from the mind, but as independent of individual responses. Subjectivity, then, is not a limitation but the very condition for truth to exist. Without it, there’s no framework for meaning, truth, or understanding. It’s a powerful inversion: objectivity depends on the universality of inner experience.
Yes! You get it 
You suck at fighting.
I remember when the ideas of subjectivity and objectivity were first introduced to me at school. I was probably 9 ot 10. I knew it was — problematic to put it mildly. Even at that young age I suspected that claims of objectivity were being used to pretend universal truth, though I would not have put it in those terms.
My mind was full of but… but … but.
IN fact what is “objective” is nothing more than what we can agree on. This works well for most science but it absurd for moral questions.
But even where the objective is most apparently clear, in science, there is still a big question about the reasons why obviously “objective” facts can be selected over others.
Against the things we can all agree on, there will never be a prohibition.
If you’re exploring the essentially prohibited, or your methods are such, you ain’t doin’ anything but the science of nuthin.
You are not making sense.
Did you read what I said?
Ethics applies to every action.
There is no keeping science and ethics in separate magisteria.
You oughtta know.
How is this relevant.,?
I think you have lost the thread
Morality is objective.
Good luck with that idiotic things to say..
Are you serious?
Rude. Is this how you approach debate and philosophy? By being an asshole?
Rude? That is subjective like morality.
Other people who see it with the humour it was delivered.
Did you REALLY mean it seriously?
I thought you were just throwing our some red meat
Here’s my formal answer
It’s fundamentally subjective because it is deeply rooted in the cultural and historical contingencies that shape human experience. What is considered morally right or wrong is not determined by some absolute, universal standard, but rather by the norms, values, and belief systems that have evolved within particular societies over time. These cultural frameworks are not static—they shift with historical forces such as politics, religion, economics, and social movements. A practice deemed virtuous in one era or society may be condemned in another, revealing how moral systems are constructed through the lens of specific human contexts.
Furthermore, moral judgments are always made by persons—individuals with their own perspectives, backgrounds, and emotional lives. These judges are never detached or neutral observers; they bring their own experiences, biases, and values into every act of moral evaluation. Likewise, the circumstances surrounding each moral act are unique, involving distinct relationships, power dynamics, intentions, and consequences. The person performing the act and those affected by it are shaped by their particular histories and subjectivities, which means the moral significance of any action cannot be fully understood outside of those specific circumstances.
Because of this, morality cannot be reduced to fixed rules that apply uniformly across all situations. Instead, it must be understood as a fluid and interpretive process—an ongoing negotiation between individuals and the cultural-historical matrices they inhabit. Moral meaning arises not from absolutes, but from human engagement with the complexity of lived experience.
Slavery is a clear case. In ancient Greece or early America, owning people was seen as normal—even moral. People found ways to justify it, whether through religion, philosophy, or economics. Now, of course, slavery is almost universally condemned. What changed wasn’t the act itself, but how society understood it.
Pedocide—the killing of children—sounds unimaginable today, but it wasn’t always viewed the same way. In ancient Carthage, for example, child sacrifice was part of religious practice. It was seen as a duty to the gods. Even in war, the deaths of children have sometimes been excused as “collateral damage,” depending on the goals or beliefs of those involved.
Same-sex relationships are another example. For a long time in many cultures, they were considered sinful, criminal, or shameful. Today, in many parts of the world, they’re accepted and protected. The relationships themselves didn’t change—society’s view did.
And then there’s the treatment of women. For centuries, women were seen as less intelligent or less capable than men and were kept out of education, politics, and work. That was once considered just “how things are.” Now, more people recognize that inequality as unjust.
Each of these examples shows how morality shifts depending on the time, place, and people involved.
YOUR TURN.
THere is no morality in an asteroid crashing into the earth 65mbp, nor yet the Supernova around the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, even if that Nova destroyed billions of conscious entities in the civilisations of that vicinity cluster.
All false.
Also the effect of people denying moral absolutism is eventual anarchy. Eroding social norms until hostility and toxic behavoir is the norm, lawlessness and anarchy like some dystopian sci fi show in space with hostile aliens.
Eventually the moral relativists will result in a society where the gates of hell open and every demon does as they please, it will be like a Blizzard game because none of the demons in hell could cooperate with each other and there was constant wars, that is why they always lost to Heaven’s armies, because they believed in moral relativism.
Moral relativism is like someone covering their eyes and saying color doesn’t exist. Or someone who sucks at calculus saying that calculus is an illusion. Ethics and morality is a human discipline that not everybody gives the praise it deserves. It is a function of evolution both genetic and cultural evolution. Again it is no different than somebody who doesn’t understand calculus and declaring calculus is subjective and a human construct. Ethics is a moral framework, it is a construct, it a function of intelligence and an extension of intelligence, but that doesn’t mean its subjective or an illusion.
Moral relativists will often pick out difficult moral paradoxes, and then use it to prove morality is a matter of opinion. Like should a bear kill a deer or should the deer get away? Who is moral? The bear or deer? Moral paradoxes such as that.
However I say there are moral absolutes. The existence of moral paradoxes does not disprove there are absolutes. Some morality is absolute, other is paradox. There is no need to assume that all morality is ambiguous, just because some morality is an ambiguous paradox.
if you can find one thing that is absolute or objective then you disprove nihilism. From just one thing you can branch out and form other absolutes. So I will give an example. Flood from Halo. They want to spread all their misery to the galaxy and change every species to become miserable. This is evil. This is absolute. Denying that is again like someone with less faculty saying color doesn’t exist because they are covering their eyes. Like I said morality is an extension of intelligence. Pointing to animals and lower life forms, or subhumans from thousands of years ago, who have less faculties, less intelligence, etc. and don’t understand morality, doesn’t disprove morality.
For example, there is an objective way to build a car, or a computer. There are many different types of cars and computers, and different ways to build it, but there are thousands of ways to fail at it, there are more ways to fail at it than to build it. People from the stone age, lacked the faculties and wisdom to build technology like that, that doesn’t mean that the teachings of technology are subjective, there are objective methods and teachings of it. As we move forward in time, our intelligence increases, and so does our understanding of morality. Like the periodic table, we uncover more elements and nuances of morality, the periodic table is objective, absolute, the true reality.
Its like the 10 commandments, many civilizations will create their own ten commandments, because its objectively good for society not to legalize stealing and murder and false testimony. So some of it is objective, some of it is subjective, under debate like “should adultery be allowed in modern societies?”, “can we have other gods”? and such. If there was aliens on another planet they would have something similar to a 10 commandments, maybe not exactly the same but similar, maybe an atheist 10 commandments that say “do not bribe” as one of the commandments.
Finally it is all about reducing the net suffering in the universe, this is what makes it objective, it doesn’t matter what species it is, if it reduces the net suffering it is moral. With tech morality can be achieved, for instance lab meats. Without tech it is often harder to achieve morality.
You are being ridiculous
If you can’t address the issues - it really is pointless.
No. Not even that is true. And by the time you get to morality you are dealing with PEOPLE, each with a brain individual and more complex than any computer.
“A Car”, might be needed for economy, or speed, or good looks. you have to chose and that is subjective.
What is the correct and objective colour for a car..???
The decalouge is not even in the Bible.
It’s cobbled together from different passages.
The first 4 “commandments” are wasted on God, and there is no provision for women, children or the weak.
SO you can take that and shove it.
To illustrate the subjectivity of morality please state the SIXTH commandment.
Says WHO??
Certainly not god.
Do you eat meat?
self=other
No, seriously.
There is if it’s an action of a person:
You agree:
Only persons do science.