What one culture calls an immoral war another culture calls it a moral war, and often with the claim of being supported their deity of choice.
My point exactly.
That would be a red herring, I believe, and maybe a straw man too?
Oops, Chad’s @chadrmangum latest reply today got blown away with the Discourse update earlier, apparently. 
I noticed a couple in other threads go missing, too. @moderators, @NateC, I suppose recovering it can’t happen?
(Apparently the post below was lost yesterday in an update. Reposting it.)
It is worth clarifying the role that justifiability has played in my comments above. You say that I add genuine justifiability as an assumption about morality, but that morality doesn’t need it. What I have done above is to describe the consequences of the two alternatives: including genuine justifiability as a premise, and not including it.
Not including it: One could drop the justifiability assumption, but that results in a state of affairs that I have yet to find someone willing to accept. Without justifiability, then we are unable to defend why a certain action is moral or immoral (for if we had a reason, then that reason would be a justification!). So without justifiability, we would have to admit that anyone can have any moral opinion about anything that they like and we have no actual reason to disagree—just personal preference. You have already said through your previous comments that you reject this option (for example, by saying that other times and cultures were wrong, and even by suggesting that God has commanded evil things), so I have been able to include genuine justifiability as an “extra” premise.
Including it: this is what leads to the self-inconsistency in the subjective morality view as described previously. It is this inconsistency that then affirms its alternative, the objective morality view.
Now about the role of disagreement over a particular moral system. I’ve recognized that people disagree about morality all the time; to say that I “assume that a moral system must be agreed upon by everyone, that there can be no disagreements” overstates my position. Disagreement has (mostly) come up in the following context: when a moral disagreement arises, the issue is whether there exists any standard by which two disagreeing people can defend their position – in other words, if justifiability exists in that moral context (which leads us to the previous paragraphs). My position is that, while moral disagreements are nearly ubiquitous, there are at least some moral issues where one party holds the correct view, and the other does not. (I also believe that there are some moral disagreements on secondary issues where it is okay for people to disagree and neither is necessarily wrong, but those aren’t the issues in view in my argument.) I don’t think that trying to convince someone of moral truth (or any other kind of truth) constitutes “forcing” them to believe as I do. Believing true things is important, whether that’s morally or otherwise, so I do attempt to convince others when I think they are believing something that is objectively wrong, and I’m open to reason for those who try to correct me in the same way. There’s nothing strange about this.
I hope you find these clarifications helpful.
1 Like
I’m glad you had it still accessible! Thanks!
What isn’t needed is what you define as “genuine justifiability”, which is an objective morality. Agreement on a subjective morality works just fine, and it is how much of humanity actually constructs their moral systems. Here in the US, we have laws and governments founded on subjective morality. It is actually unconstitutional to base a law solely on the fact that it is written down in someone’s religious texts. Our laws are based on representative democracy which is the publics’ subjective opinion of who should be in power and what our laws should be. We debate what our laws should be based on the subjective human experience, not on a list of rules that someone claims is an objective morality.
Justifiability does exist. One of the major tenets of a justifiable moral system is the simple question, “How would that make you feel?”. Morality begins with our shared subjective sense of morality that is informed by empathy. What many of us are not convinced by is “it’s moral because it says so in a book”.
1 Like
Until there’s disagreement, as he already has demonstrated (more than once?).
Disagreement is just fine. Debate and conflict is part of the process that moral systems go through. People should be free to disagree with each other.
If one claims that their religious text is an objective morality but people disagree, what then? How does claiming an objective morality fix this claimed problem? Or do we force them to obey the religious text, as is the case in some theocracies across the globe?
2 Likes
I think you are using the wrong practice of objective moral law as an argument against the existence of it.
Do you disagree with Sharia law? If so, you disagree with an objective morality as defined by @chadrmangum . If you can just disagree with an objective morality, then what benefit does objective morality have over subjective morality which you claim has problems because people can disagree with it?
2 Likes
Just because it gets written down does not make something objective morality. Implicit in the discussion up until now is that we are talking about true and legitimate morality, not ‘alternative facts’.
Just because someone disagrees with it does not nullify it, either, and how disagreement about or disobedience to objective morality is handled is another topic. What is being addressed here is the existence of said objective morality.
1 Like
I would agree, but @chadrmangum seems to have a different opinion.
So how do you determine if a moral system is true and legitimate?
Then we can disregard disagreement as a potential problem for subjective morality.
2 Likes
Channeling Zhuangzi, by any chance?
Could you point to where?
Maybe (likely ; - ) I don’t recall recall correctly, but I think we agreed on one moral absolute to build on: “If a statement is true, then we should accept it.” It’s the subsequent steps that become problematic and disagreeable (I know I can be, anyway 
).
Absolutely. ETA: strikethrough – I misread. I should think subjective morality is open for discussion, e.g., vaccine and mask mandates. (That does not mean they cannot legitimately be legislated, however.)
Maybe Mackenzie, Aitken and Pusey?
Sure:
I happen to think that is a feature, not a bug. Morality should be a discussion, not a list of rules no one can question.
1 Like
I don’t see how that changes my argument. It cannot be just any standard.
Then what criteria do you use to judge between standards in a way that no one will disagree?
If two people both claim to have an objective morality, but those moralities disagree with each other, how do you determine which is true?
2 Likes
How much discussion do you want over “If a statement is true, then we should accept it”? Do we disagree?
On group says it is immoral for a women for women to have the right to vote. Another group says it is immoral to deny women the right to vote. Which is true, and why?