(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
But people can have different views about 2+2= .... There is no reason for someone not to think 2+2=7. That doesn't change the fact that one value is right and the other is wrong. The fact that people have different beliefs in morals doesn't change anything either. Let me put it differently. If someone says to you "the best ice-cream flavour is chocolate", what they mean to say is "the best ice-cream flavour is chocolate to me
". They're expressing a personal preference, and that-is-that. You're not going to debate with them to change their minds, or go through reasons why mint is the best. But when someone says "abortion if wrong", they're saying "abortion is wrong" full-stop
. That statement "abortion if wrong" is either true or false. That is why they'll go through reasons ... So morality is not a matter of preference, like ice-cream flavor, but an objective issue. We don't necessarily have to know we have the truth. Science operates under the assumption of scientific progress and the same applies to morality.
In subjectivism everybody is infallible with regards to moral truths because they're equivalent to what each person believes them to be. Yet, it is clearly the intuition of most people that some people are have wrong beliefs about moral actions, just as someone can have a wrong belief about what two plus two equals. If someone believes it equals seven, they still have an incorrect belief. Perception is obviously subjective, but the fact that two plus two equals an objective figure, means it is not subject a person's belief. So, yes, there will be people committing murders and torture and so on ... but that doesn't change the fact it is an immoral act.
A big difference is that objectivism does not depend on what you think
is right. So, only an objectivist can attempt to improve his actions and make moral progress. A moral relativist has no reason to change since there is no such thing as a better view. In fact, once you start talking about morality - in terms of this is bad ... , you shouldn't have done this ... , you should do that ... etc ... then you have accepted that morality is objective to one degree or another.
Lastly, I don't really understand why people think God is needed. When faced with moral questions, people rationally and intuitively decide between actions that either lead to needless or overwhelming suffering or those that produce of happiness. You could even apply it to animals. That is why I am a humanist. I believe that morality is grounded in human intuition
and reason. Morality is about human well-being.