How to fuck could morals be subjective?

File: Sanctus Paulus.jpg (142KB, 522x562px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 522x562px

>For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Romans 2:12-16

>>1629990
What arguments would you make for objectivity?

>>1629990
How could they be objective?

>>1629990

Well they can't be objective.

What we consider good or bad depends on our tribe.

You forget, the ancient celts performed human sacrifice and now their descendants don't.

>>1630138
Has Christianity always been that political?

>>1630403
yes

>>1630347
>>1630341
>>1630321
I think the onus is on you guys to explain why sentences like
the sun is hot
are tuth apt
whereas
that murder was wrong
is not truth apt

what makes one sentence truth-apt, and the other not? On the surface they both have the same sort of structure. X is Y.

Is the subjective/objective distinction really actualy adding anything to the conversation other than confusion? What are we really trying to say here?

What I think is the clearer question should be, "are moral statements truth apt".

by which I mean do tru/false apply to moral statements, in the same way they do to scientific statements, or really all kinds of other statements. "1kg is 1000grams", we can all agree is a truth apt statement. "John just said hello to annie", this is truth apt no?

"john ought not have murdered annie". IS this not truth apt? why not? Why is this not a statement to which true or false applies to?

'It was wrong for john to murder annie'. WHy is this statement not truth apt?

I don't have the answers here. PLenty of statements aren't truth apt. Things like 'I now pronounce you man and wife', this is not something true or false applies to. neither is 'good morning john'. 'why is the sky blue' etc.

so basically what I am saying is that on the surface moral statements appear to have the same sort of structure as other statements which we consider truth-apt. SO the onus is on the 'subjective morality' crowd to prove that this is an illusion and moral statements are in fact NOT truth-apt.

The carrot is orange
The theft was wrong

X is Y

why is one truth apt and not the other? and how can this be when the structure of both statements are identicial (X is Y)

>>1629990
it's just nihilism with memes

>>1630466
Due to the criterion of ontological commitment.

If you accept "a is G" is a true statement, we are ontologically committed to accepting the existence of "a" but not of "G."

"Ball is Red" presupposes the Ball to exist but does not necessitate the existence of Redness.

File: 1471802055785.png (17KB, 495x573px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 495x573px

>>1629990
How are they objective?