Tom, please objectively define wrong outside of saying it's contrary to the andates of the authority......
Dude, glad you're seeing that there's an "authority" involved. Because YOU'RE RIGHT ! A "thing" can't issue rules and laws. Ie.: we have no moral obligations to rocks and inanimate objects. Eh ? Only personal agents ("who's" not "what's" ) can issue rules and moral obligations, right ? Ok, then in the context of your above quote, what "authority" did YOU have in mind ?? That needs to be answered before I can answer you.
I have a suspicion that the "authority" you speak of, is the collective societal "we" and "us", right ? That codifies their laws into laws (eg.: don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc...). Right ? So then on that view (that you've spelled out at-length so far), then presto: Societies and cultures (ie.: the collective "we") are the "authority". Right ? YET AS YOU CAN SEE, this fails the test drive when we do a simple look at history. Right ?
So now you're turning the tables on me (as if to admit defeat in your test drive) and asking ME: "Who then, is this authority ?". Have I understood you correctly ? As soon as you answer that, I will answer you. But first, you must admit that your stance failed the test drive. If you do not, then I can only fear you will "move the goal post" on me. If you continue to say "whatever society says", then all I will continue to do is show the failure of that. But if you truly acknowledge that this puts you in a pickle, THEN I will tell you what "authority" I cite. Agreed ?
.... The facts that the concepts exist doesn't mean they are objective. Why is that hard to swallow?.....
Here is what you're not swallowing : You're making the typical mistake that atheists (forgive me if that's a wrong label for you) make : They confuse epistemology and ontology . Go ahead and google them. But in a nutshell, using an easy analogy, here it is :
It's like 2 people discussing the 25 mph speed limit on a certain residential street. BOTH OF THEM can agree that the "concept exists" (notice that is pulled from your quote above). The atheist and the theist BOTH AGREE that the speed limit exists. And in fact, the atheist can keep that speed limit just as obediently as the theist can. But when it comes time to argue "where did the speed limit come from ?", the atheist points at the speed limit sign and says "what's wrong with you ? Don't you see the speed limit sign ? ", while the theist is saying "sure, but WHO MADE THE SPEED LIMIT ?". It had to be some city council meeting decades earlier that decided, and put that sign up.
So as you see, the "existence" of a speed limit is not the question , it's WHO MADE THE SPEED LIMIT that is the question. Ie.: ontology and epistemology.
..... Emphatically YES!.....
The above answer was in response to the question: "Is the murder of innocent people only subjectively wrong ?"
Ok folks, let's all let truth-OT's answer sink in. He is now acknowledging that yes, even murder is subjective. So when he says "that's wrong", then it's not necessarily wrong for the murdering society or persons. Ok, let that sink in. At least Truth-OT is being honest. Yet let's all wait a few minutes, and you'll see truth-OT wave his fist and give a list of things that are "wrong". But not to worry : They're not *really* wrong. They're just his , and perhaps his present society's cultural position.
All I have to do (which you will again promptly ignore) is cite various evils-in-the-world (eg.: torturing kittens, gay-bashing, slashing your tires, etc....). And you will immediately wave your fists and say "that's wrong". And guess what ? : You will mean "wrong" in an objective, not subjective sense. When are you going to see ? If you don't , then I am guessing I know why : Because you have a "prior commitment" . And you see where this is going.
.....Wrong again. I can say that their actions were wrong in my estimation as from my subjective point of view I find their actions to be vile and inhuman. To me, whenever someone engages in vile and inhuman behaviors towards human beings, I find that to be wrong (even if the perpetrators are doing so in accordance with what they deem a divine command). .....
You are so much fun. Ok, let's analyze the above quote . They were only "wrong in your estimation from your subjective point of view" . Ok, fine. Then why should they care less what you think ? They're "wrong", but only "subjectively wrong" (from your point of view). Fine, then why are you waiving your fists complaining ? They are waiving their fists and complaining about you. Ok ? So who cares ? They're saying you're wrong. Ok ? And since there is no TRUE "right and wrong" (since it's all subjective), then presto, quit your whining and listing all the evils of the world. Since it's not *really* evil. It's only questions of chocolate vs vanilla. Ok ?
"Vile and inhuman" are strictly subjective. So : Who are you to push your morals on me or any other culture ? Ie.: "You've got your truth and I've got my truth". Ok ? Then in that case, don't 'diss those cultures that choose to throw virgins into volcanoes, or enact Jim Crow laws, or throw jews into gas chambers.
.....We all do. That's a major reason that so much is subjective. .....
Wait, the problem here is, in using this very conversation as a case example is: You think you're right and I'm wrong (and I don't blame you for your persistence, since I'm equally as persistent). BUT WAIT : Only one of us can be right, in the same way at the same time. Study the "law of non-contradiction" (google it). In other words: Since each of our views contradict each other (only one can be true), then , by definition, the matter CAN'T BE SUBJECTIVE . Only one of the views can be correct. Hence why else would you be arguing for your view, if you didn't think it was objectively correct ? And why else would I be arguing for my view if I didn't think it was objectively correct ?
Don't you see ?
..... But the fact is that up until VERY recently, gay bashing was accepted and not considered as wrong. No moral standard put worth defended gay rights in the past that I am aware of. Society's subjective viewpoint changed so that what is tolerated as it relates to the treatment of gay people has become more equitable. . .....
Correct. So on-your-view, if you were speaking/living "back then when gay-bashing was accepted", you'd have to say : "that's morally ok". Got it.