[Cavernio]

"1+1=2 is true regardless of who knows about it because it describes something that's true for everyone. The same can't be said for morality."

But you're not saying why it can't be same for morality, you're simply saying that it isn't. Neither are you saying how 1+1=2 is true in such a way that morality could not apply the same principles.

Also, implausible situations are no less valid in this discussion, and they are incredibly useful for illustrating my point.

"1. The destruction of the Earth is not objectively bad. It's subjectively bad, but largely agreed upon by most people."

But 1+1 != 2 because I say so. Therefore it's subjective, even though it's largely agreed upon by most people. (Although, tbh, I'm not sure you'd find a single person who will say that total destruction of the world is good.)

That's the summation of your argument against morality, except I'm using it for a mathematical statement. This is why you are not convincing.

"The problem with morality is that we can't always raise the utility of everyone and everything at the same time. There are countless cases where you'll have to weigh and balance decisions because you can't please everyone. We don't have the resources or ability to maximize everyone's happiness. We have to pick and choose when and who we benefit and who we ignore/screw over/etc. They're all judgment calls, and judgment calls aren't objective because judgment isn't objective. They're based on how the context of the situation is parsed."

Which is why I've asked why complexity/lack of knowledge implies subjectivity.

If I hold an opinion about whether an action is moral or not, that is subjective. Whether or not the action is in fact moral or not, whether or not it will result in the best possible outcome for all living, experiencing things, is not subjective. The fact that I might think someone else is more or less hurt than they actually are is not the issue either; their actual state of being is the issue.The fact that reaching this moral perfection is impossible is not the issue. It is a practical issue, however this thread is clearly not talking about whether situation x is moral, but rather arguing against the idea that an individual they can think whatever they want is moral because they see morality as subjective. You may think this thread is pointless then, however it is not, because the fact that someone can think 'morality is totally subjective', means that there can be no better or worse answer to a situation because it doesn't exist, which totally invalidates the whole idea of morality in the first place.


I can't watch the video atm, not at home, no headphones, although I suspect it's just what your last paragraph says.