right and wrong

[Cavernio]

Ledwix: Really? It's like you read the intial post, then took my most recent post and just added paragraphs at breaking points in my argument, while reading none of the discussion inbetween, even though I suspect you didn't.

"If all 7 billion people thought the earth was flat, would that make it an objective truth about the universe? It is possible for biological organisms to be deluded. Agreement does not necessarily equal fact."
is not really relevant to my intended statement. If I say 'the sky is blue', it is completely mired in individual experience, such that if every human being thought the sky is blue, then so be it. And the number of people who think the sky is blue changes whether or not the sky is actually blue. To have the capacity to see blue is subjective, and yet there is an objective truth that extends from that subjectivity, namely that the sky is blue.

"you either eat, or starve. Both scenarios include suffering, which renders the whole objective morality stance bogus. It would mean that BOTH actions, eating and starving, would be immoral. And so nothing is moral."
...
Hence a reason why I defined moral as the opposite of immoral, and moral is minimizing immoralness. Furthermore, the fact that I do eat meat despite not having to do so means that I am being immoral when I eat it. I also specifically said that what people do is not necessarily moral and that what drives people doesn't have to be moral.

Using your meat example even more, to show how my ideas of morality can still be objective, regardless of whether or not I carefully weigh and consider what is moral or not when I eat, the fact remains that an animal dies when I eat it, and the animal probably does not want that. That is why in the vegan thread I was so against people who are like 'Being vegan's a choice, don't get pissy at me when I support torturing animals, its my choice, and it's a perfectly moral one.' But that animal is still tortured, whether or not I or you really care if it is, whether or not you think you are justified in eating it. Now...if you're too dumb to know that you are eating what once was an animal, that is different.

ddrxero: We evolved a brain and the ability to be logical. Seeing as our brains create factual, objective things like science and numbers, I don't know why something like morality should be any different. It's just a hell of a lot harder to be moral, and way more things to know and think of. Also, Examples of how people fail at being moral don't show anything. Examples of how people think they are moral even though, given more information, we find they are not, still does not counter anything I've said.


Aside: Also in regards to eating meat, if an animal is given a happy existence so that people can eat it, I don't see it as immoral. Rather, we have the control over whether it exists at all, and existence is better than no existence. Of course, if there were to be woods in that farmland instead, it might be more moral to not raise animals.

[ddrxero64]

Numbers and sciences have always existed, we created the symbols, words, and language to label them but they've always been there. We didn't create factual, objective things, we discovered them. When you touch something hot, you discover it's hot. You didn't make it hot, it already was.

Morals are what we created to be wrong or right, and everyone will see that differently. Society is just run by the majority who take one side.

Mind you, I have things I find immoral, but I acknowledge they're just opinion and something I cannot control. Similar to phobias, you accept it's a phobia but you can't alter the feeling it gives you, at least not easily (hence why people find it difficult to go against their own morals).

[stargroup100]

There's a very simple reason why I don't like participating in these kinds of discussions anymore.

There are some concepts that are very simple and can be agreed upon to be true for virtually all cases, such as the fact that morals vary between cultures, or that "right" and "wrong" are concepts created by mankind. These should not be points of discussion. In order to really think critically, you have to understand and discuss the nature of these concepts and how they shape our perception of morality, such as that SMBC comic devonin posted.

For the large majority of people, however, this is a topic that, regardless of how you discuss it, you should treat it as simply as possible in real life (and most people will do this anyways, thank god). The more you try to rationalize it, the more it doesn't make sense. Some things in the universe can be rationalized and should be rationalized, but other things are either not worth rationalizing or too complex to rationalize, or both. Thinking too much on this subject will either get you nowhere, or in more extreme cases, deteriorate your mental health.

For most people, the practical real life summary of this discussion is as follows:
- The golden rule: treat others how you want to be treated.
- Happiness is good, pain and suffering is usually bad. Should the latter happen, at least try to avoid it in the future.

[ddrxero64]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

- Happiness is good, pain and suffering is usually bad. Should the latter happen, at least try to avoid it in the future.

I agreed until I read this. Now I agree every human lives in the pursuit of happiness, every decision you make is to pursue something that you want or like. I'm glad you used the word usually though, but pain and suffering is needed in order to know and enjoy happiness.

I think this would be derailing if I discussed it though. I can agree with most of your post and agree to disagree.

[Cavernio]

"Mind you, I have things I find immoral, but I acknowledge they're just opinion and something I cannot control. Similar to phobias, you accept it's a phobia but you can't alter the feeling it gives you, at least not easily (hence why people find it difficult to go against their own morals)."
Accepting loss of self-control is called self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can't control your opinion, then you definitely can't control your actions, and humans definitely wouldn't have any ideas of morality because it would all be beyond our control anyways...

Keep in mind that the impetus for the post was someone saying in the 'is it wrong to be gay?' from someone who likely feels that it is wrong to be gay. They're defense? 'Morals are individual things, you don't have the right to get upset at someone who feels that being gay is wrong because that person's morals are their own.' Oh really? So, it's acceptable for them to dislike gays because their morals tell them it is so, and yet it is unacceptable for my morals to say that a gay-hater is wrong? Whose morals are higher? A gay hater, or a person who hates the gay hater? Is that a dumb question? Is such a thing as a 'higher' moral possible? Why or why not? Why is it that when we start to question individual morals that clash, or discuss any moral question, in order to resolve anything we must take a step back to examine them from a more logical perspective?
And if you don't, then how can you call them morals if they are so clearly only self-serving?

Sure, we can say that people developed moral standards because ultimately they want to be treated well, but what about when someone's actions don't follow that? What if I don't eat meat not because I feel bad for imaginary pigs in my head, but because I logically think it's wrong to eat pigs? Surely it's not me being subconsciously worried that someone might kill and eat ME so therefore I shouldn't eat a pig.

Also, hot doesn't exist without a person. Heat does. Although I'm having a hard time seeing how this discussion has anything to do with applying logic to morality, which is what this whole damned thing was supposed to be about.

off-track: So...stargroup's clumping all 'macro' discussions for any number of topics into a subtype that he feels shouldn't be talked about in no way, shape or form uses the same sort of meta-thinking that the comic itself was against, while it is somehow valid to be so meta when invalidating metaness. Macroness/metaness is how the human mind synthesizes all the fiddly bits of information. Without it we wouldn't have intelligence, we wouldn't have any understanding of a whole of any type. We wouldn't even see ourselves as individuals.
(I'm also pretty sure I'm not a very mentally healthy person.)

[ddrxero64]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

"Mind you, I have things I find immoral, but I acknowledge they're just opinion and something I cannot control. Similar to phobias, you accept it's a phobia but you can't alter the feeling it gives you, at least not easily (hence why people find it difficult to go against their own morals)." Accepting loss of self-control is called self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can't control your opinion, then you definitely can't control your actions, and humans definitely wouldn't have any ideas of morality because it would all be beyond our control anyways...

Keep in mind that the impetus for the post was someone saying in the 'is it wrong to be gay?' from someone who likely feels that it is wrong to be gay. They're defense? 'Morals are individual things, you don't have the right to get upset at someone who feels that being gay is wrong because that person's morals are their own.' Oh really? So, it's acceptable for them to dislike gays because their morals tell them it is so, and yet it is unacceptable for my morals to say that a gay-hater is wrong?

I will rephrase for you. It is something I can control, but I accept it is difficult for me to change something I've been raised to believe my whole life. If you grow up and your entire life you're led to believe murder is wrong, it's very hard for you to ever consider it being ok. Yet in other countries young teenage soldiers could never accept someone escaping the death penality for a crime, they feel it is their duty to enforce the law they've lived with their whole life.

No one is saying it is unacceptable for you to say a gay hater is wrong. This is where your argument just starts to spiral out of control. Nowhere in this thread has anyone said your morals were wrong. I've been saying there's no such thing as right or wrong not attacking your morals, whatever they may be.

HERE'S THE PART THAT MATTERS.

Cavernio, you make a lot of fallacies in your argument. So I'm going to provide you with the two you've brought up most.

Originally Posted by devonin

Argumentum ad consequentiam or Appeal to consequences - This fallacy is where you conclude that a premise must be right/wrong because the consequences of it being right/wrong are desireable/undesireable. Example: If God didn't exist, life would be meaningless. I desire life to have meaning, therefore God exists.

Murder is wrong because it would cause a lot of trauma to the family being affected, and because it is unpleasant to see death. It is possible murdering this one person may save dozens maybe thousands of lives because the man was a terrorist. It is possible if he was jailed he may have escaped due to connections. We don't know if it's right or wrong for this man to be murdered (because it's neither), we're looking at the possibilities of consequences of him being murdered or kept alive and jailed.

Originally Posted by devonin

Argumentum ad Baculum or Appeal to force - This fallacy is where you conclude that a premise is right/wrong because there is a threat of punishment to do otherwise. Example: Believe in God or you will go to hell.

An 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old girlfriend is wrong because he will go to jail if he does. The law is created by man, not fact, and he may move to Canada and have intercourse with this girlfriend without going to jail. It is unlawful in some countries, but it is only right or wrong because you think it is and because it would cause negative consequences due to the laws set forth by the country.

Cavernio, you're full of fallacies. You should look over devonin's fallacy thread before putting out arguments that are full of them.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Also, hot doesn't exist without a person. Heat does.

I hope you're not serious.

...just in case you are here's a quick lesson.

"It is hot."

"It is heat."

"Heat is hot."

"Heat" is the noun. "It" is the pronoun being described by the adjective "hot," and "it" is referring to "heat." Hot exists if heat exists. It can exist without being discovered by a person. Hot is what we call the feeling heat gives us, but if another lifeform had evolved to create their own language they may describe it as something else. Even then what we are referring to when we say "hot" will still exist even if we don't.

[devonin]

I hope you're not serious.

...just in case you are here's a quick lesson.

"It is hot."

"It is heat."

"Heat is hot."

"Heat" is the noun. "It" is the pronoun being described by the adjective "hot," and "it" is referring to "heat." Hot exists if heat exists. It can exist without being discovered by a person. Hot is what we call the feeling heat gives us, but if another lifeform had evolved to create their own language they may describe it as something else. Even then what we are referring to when we say "hot" will still exist even if we don't.

Well actually, the point he raises is correct. Heat exists independent of humans. We can measure it in places we aren't, we know things that generate it that would generate it whether we were here or not. But 'Hot' is a term we've coined to describe the sensation we feel when exposed to heat.

While it's true that another species developing independently from ours would almost certainly -also- have a term for the sensation they feel when exposed to heat, the statement "Hot doesn't exist without a person" is exactly as true and relevant to his point as "Slurm doesn't exist without a bocatlzian"

The point is "Things exist on their own, and then we interact with them, and apply terms and names to the consequences of those interactions."

There is a scientific definition of "heat" we know what heat is in a vacuum. There are things which are objectively "generating heat" or not, but it is a subjective decision on the part of an individual to choose what to define as "hot" or not. My girlfriend runs the shower -dramatically- hotter than I do. What I consider to be "hot" water, she considers to be "lukewarm" water. And what she calls "hot" I call "Scalding" but in both cases, the water is objectively an instance of -heat-

Edit: Also, when you get right down to it, given the actual scientific definition of "heat" even things we consider to be freezing cold are actually generating heat. Compare the contents of your freezer to Absolute Zero and see how cold they are. We call all kinds of things "not hot" that are properly quite hot indeed.

[ddrxero64]

When you put it that way you're completely right, I didn't consider that temperatures to us could feel or just be drastically different to another species or in general. Well, in general hot is an opinion. Aat the same time I doubt that's what he was trying to argue, at least you provided more comprehensible and less faulty logic. I fudged up on that one. Off the side that's probably the point in his post I started to throw all logic out the window.

What I should say is the cause of the sensation can exist even if we're not here. But in those terms the sensation cannot exist if there is nothing to sense it. damn..

To be honest I'm pretty happy you pointed that out, it's not often I see completely sensible and logical arguments without bias in this forum. Thx devonin~

Edit: devonin what is this..

[devonin]

Edit: devonin what is this..

You said that hot would exist with another lifeform besides humans having evolved. I pointed out that the point was identical whether it was humans or some random other life form. I made the word up.

[ddrxero64]

ok, thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure if you were referring to a legitimate term, but I see the reason you used a made up word. Probably a reference to slurm being used before as a pretend word too. I wasn't too sure.

[Cavernio]

godamnit, I lost a mammoth post....

Sigh, here's the basics. Human derived concepts are by necessity unfactual, nor are they the opposite. You cannot prove that just because something is a concept from our head that it means it is false.

If people didn't believe their own version of morality were factual, or at least close to factual, then morality wouln't exist and everything would be like the comic suggests.
So, my morality is wrong if you say something that contradicts it is wrong. You have said my morality is wrong ddrxero.

My concept of morality is not refuted by you saying that there is disagreement between individual concepts of what is right or wrong when they are applied; I went over that already.

If everyone can agree that some acts are always wrong or always right, for example, randomly stabbing someone is wrong, there's an implication that there indeed exists a factual morality. No, this is not proof, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that morality is purely individual. It clearly has the capacity for universality.

Also, thanks for crediting and praising devonin for the concept I brought up, because you're too focussed on thinking me dumb to bother thinking about things I say, but are perfectly fine to think about it when he says it.

And once more, I am a she.

[devonin]

Also, thanks for crediting and praising devonin for the concept I brought up, because you're too focussed on thinking me dumb to bother thinking about things I say, but are perfectly fine to think about it when he says it.

Or what you were driving at was unclear to him, I restated it in a way that he understood, and he thanked me for making it so he understood what you were saying. I don't see why you need to take that personally or treat it like some sort of dismissal or judgement of you.

[Cavernio]

He thanked you for being unbiased, not just for giving a good explanation, while meanwhile critisizing me for being biased the previous post. Anyways...

The only thing that we have to measure how factual an idea that is, at least on the surface, derived within people, is how much agreement there is among everyone. eg: If I were to think that a person in a vegetative state is intelligent (intelligence being the human derived idea), then I would be false. Why? Because they're the opposite of intelligent. As defined by individuals. It is not a universal law, but it can still be wrong even though we only have other humans to tell us it is wrong.
Do you agree ddrxero?
Assuming you do, and considering that you think morality just doesn't have truths and falsities, (I'm struggling for the right word there), why does the concept of morality have a different standard than the concept of intelligence?

The only way morality can come to an agreement is by considering everyone's views and all the facts and then logically churning out an answer as to how moral the action was. If you are not doing this, then there's all sorts of opportunity to specifically be going against someone's morals, which is specifically immoral. I could say that anything is immoral simply because I feel like it is.

[devonin]

Assuming you do, and considering that you think morality just doesn't have truths and falsities, (I'm struggling for the right word there), why does the concept of morality have a different standard than the concept of intelligence?

It doesn't. There's actually just as much disagreement over a definition of intelligent and how to apply it to people as there is over a definition of moral and how to apply it to actions.

You think someone in a vegetative state is not intelligent. People who feel that same way and want to end the life of someone in that state have had to contend with the Supreme Court of the United States in legal battles with doctors, family members etc who absolutely do NOT agree with your opinion as stated above.

Agreement among people is how you generate a social contract, a specific form of moral code built around subjugating your own personal desires and feelings to devise a system as agreeable as possible to as many people as possible. That doesn't establish objective rightness or wrongness, it actually generally tends to assume no such thing is possible.

Going against someone else's morals is only "immoral" to me if my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is immoral. If my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is -moral- then by your logic, aren't you just as much at fault for disagreeing with my morals as you think I am for disagreeing with yours?

[ddrxero64]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

So, my morality is wrong if you say something that contradicts it is wrong. You have said my morality is wrong ddrxero.

Your morality is neither right nor wrong. Focus on the topic you brought forward, not your morality.

And I can't agree with that because I'd prefer you define what about this person (in their vegetative state) is intelligent. Intelligence is measured in a subjective way, but the fact is their body isn't functioning properly. If braindead is part of being vegetative, I'm assuming, then they can't actually think or produce thoughts and therefore are incapable of being intelligent, unless someone thinks intelligence isn't measured by what you're capable of doing using your brain.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I could say that anything is immoral simply because I feel like it is.

Yes, yes you could. And it would be your opinion that you are entitled to.

Edit: Apologies Ms.Cavernio, nowhere was it specified you were a woman, and I'm generally more used to seeing guys in this forum and in stepmania communities. Now I know.

Edit 2: I actually want to point out that you're taking the word bias in a negative connotation. I can be biased without being negative. I could say DDR is the best game out there, but only because I never played much of any other rhythm game and I had lots of fun with DDR in the past. That's being biased, but I'm not being negative toward any other specific game.

So I can say you're biased and criticize you for it, but criticism isn't a mean thing. Criticism is usually used in a negative context so I'm going to guess that's the way you're taking it, but think of my posts as constructive criticism, not unproductive criticism. That's the way I intend it when I make them.

[Cavernio]

I didn't mean intelligent as in 'has some intelligence' devonin, but intelligent as in 'hey, that person's smart!' for the vegetative state example, not to be confused with an argument that you seem to be implying that 'intelligence=consciousness', which is another thing. Like, society's not going to be giving any 'intelligence' prizes to the person in a vegetative state.

Also, the acknowledgment of the inability to appease everyone, again, doesn't go against what I've said. To say that it is unknown what is best or worst doesn't mean that the idea that 'I know what is good/bad for me, bad is wrong good is right, therefore I have knowledge of what is good/bad for you, therefore bad for you is wrong and good for you is right' is invalid.

ddrxero: "Intelligence is measured in a subjective way, but the fact is their body isn't functioning properly. If braindead is part of being vegetative, I'm assuming, then they can't actually think or produce thoughts and therefore are incapable of being intelligent, unless someone thinks intelligence isn't measured by what you're capable of doing using your brain."

The fact that intelligence is subjective yet seems to have some sort of measurable outside force is in fact key to my argument. I agree, a vegetative person is not intelligent because they don't have bain activity (assuming they don't have any that is, which may notbe the case for some vegetative individuals given the most recent studies, but anyways...) The fact is, a person can be happy or sad, and that can be something measurable either through hard science like measuring pleasure centers in the brain. One's happiness or sadness or pain or pleasure is as close to a physically measurable entitiy as heat. Morality is based on how we treat others, and we have hard measures of those people's pleasure. If we treat morality as logically as intelligence, then we end up trying to please everyone as best we can. So again, I ask you, how is this different from our totally subjective, yet agreed upon, definition of intelligence?
If I go out and randomly kill someone on the street right now, the fact that no one would could possibly see that as right, that it will be viewed as wrong by anyone who possesses morality, means something about morality and human-made concepts in general too.
The fact that if 2 people whose morals disagree, yet a 3rd party can come in and mediate, like a judge, strongly implies that there is some sort of tacit societal agreement about what is right and wrong which is beyond what any 1 individual thinks. The only logical step for someone who's trying to be as moral as possible is, therefore, to be as close to that 3rd party as possible. And the only agreement that we can all possibly have about morals IS in regards to measures of hurt/happy or pain/pleasure (whatever you want to call them), because they ARE the only measurable things. My version, THE version of morality we all share, is very intentionally defined by what is measurable and known.

Unless you think morality is actually disconnected from how an individual treats others, in which case my argument is totally invalid.

Again, the reality that we may never know what is best or worst is irrelevant. I am arguing against people who are taking the idea of 'it's unknown what is bad or good' to mean that it is therefore valid to make up right and wrong. For instance, arguments like 'it is unnatural' to imply that something is wrong is NOT moral because it is not based off of 'good' and 'bad' which people experience.

me: "So, my morality is wrong if you say something that contradicts it is wrong. You have said my morality is wrong ddrxero. "
ddrexo: "Your morality is neither right nor wrong. Focus on the topic you brought forward, not your morality."

Ahhahha, but that IS the topic, is it not? Rather, the topic is that there exists a 'factual' morality, and that if your morals aren't attemping to coincide with that 'factual' morality, then your morals are not only wrong, they are false. (I'm not perfect enough to know what is factually right or wrong, even if I were to spend my entire life trying to learn what is or isn't.) Besides which, you took my sentence as a separate entity from the sentences before. The point I was trying to make is that if I believe in something as moral, then by definition, I must think it is not only right but 'factually right' or 'true', or else it is not really a moral, it's just a thing I think. Which means that if anyone's morals disagree with anyone else's, they can't both be right. But people do still try and resolve moral disagreements, and the only way you can DO that is by tapping into yet another morality, one which takes into consideration what I think is right and the other party thinks is right, as well as the moral/immoral actions and who they affect, etc. That is the morality that is common, and that is the morality that stems from the most basic moral values of hurt/helping others, which are in turn based on the facts that people experience desirable and undesirable things.

"Going against someone else's morals is only "immoral" to me if my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is immoral. If my own moral code says going against the morals of someone else is -moral- then by your logic, aren't you just as much at fault for disagreeing with my morals as you think I am for disagreeing with yours?"
No, because we both agree that everyone's fundamental morals are the same, that hurting yourself and others is wrong and 'happying' them is right. 'Respecting your opinion' is defintitely involved in this, but only because not acknowledging your opinion causes hurt. (Well, to make it more complicated we can't know what is going to be best for everyone you must have as much knowledge as possible so it is also steeped in the fact that I must think about and consider your opinion.) Your argument is valid only if there is no such thing for social agreement for morals, which isn't the case.

And idc about you not knowing that I wasn't female ddrxero, but tsk tsk to devonin because I'm 99% sure he's posted in threads that I've said it in before. That said, you should try and not assume everyone you are talking to of unknown gender is male, regardless of the site's propensity for males. The view to consider people as males who are not talking about something outside the realm of a female-viewed activity is far-reaching in our society and is annoying. How would you like to be considered a woman by default?

[fido123]

Originally Posted by ddrxero64

Yes, yes you could. And it would be your opinion that you are entitled to.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion but some opinions are shit. If an opinion is uneducated and not based off of anything rational or factual that opinion is nothing but garbage for both the person holding it and everybody else. Nothing urks me more when I'm having a civil debate with somebody and they get all defensive and pull that line when their opinion is based on faith, wishful thinking, or more times than not stubborness.

[Squares, the Cube]

I can't quite see where the debate is anymore.

It isn't "right" to make people happy. It's optional. The world isn't some big wall of white and black. There's this huge gray area in which most people live. The statement that all moral answers should be the summation of opinions does not defend your position. You are basically stating that moral boundaries exist due to opinions, which means it's opinionated.

Edit: And what I mean about optional is-

If I were to make someone feel completely indifferent, is that right or wrong? Are those the only two options? Things are either directed towards making people happier or hurting them? Of course not! That's a false dichotomy.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Squares, the Cube

The statement that all moral answers should be the summation of opinions does not defend your position. You are basically stating that moral boundaries exist due to opinions, which means it's opinionated.

But I never said that moral answers are the summation of 'opinions', but of experience. (Not experience as in 'I have experience playing games', but rather the experience OF playing games.) My personal experience is not an opinion, it can exist outside of what I think, as are other's experiences. That should be clear from the very first post. Opinion is also an experience (I think something, therefore I experience it), but opinion is not static, it can be changed, and yes, it should be considered as experience for the purposes of determining what is right and wrong, along with the knowledge that opinion isn't static, and that changing someone's opinion may in fact be the most moral solution to something, rather than ruling 'in favor' of one person or another. However, there exists some experience that cannot be changed, and by saying 'morality is totally an individual opinion', does not account for that experience.

It seems that some people are having a hard time separating these two ideas. I'm not sure why.

Originally Posted by Squares, the Cube

If I were to make someone feel completely indifferent, is that right or wrong? Are those the only two options? Things are either directed towards making people happier or hurting them? Of course not! That's a false dichotomy.

If you make someone feel completely indifferent it is more right than hurting them and less right than making them feel happy...Must I really spell that out to you? Must it be assumed that since I did not use that specific example, that I have not considered it? For instance, must it be assumed that I have not considered the vast array of human emotions and experiences, which may be considered both good and bad at the same time by an individual, simply because I have not added that particular caveat to an argument of mine??? Well let me spell it out for you; the individual experiencing both of these is the judge. If they are unsure about themselves, then it is neither wrong nor right, and lies exactly between the two.

[Squares, the Cube]

I'm understanding things a bit more than I did yesterday.

You disagree with the statement:

"Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" is a completely SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement."

I disagree with this too. And I think the statement is very much wrong. Many things can be deemed right and wrong without being subjective or opinionated. I'd agree with this statement:

Saying something is "Right" or "Wrong" can be a SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED statement."

Though to my knowledge, only what's considered factual is the exception. I can't say killing someone is morally wrong because in some cases, I can see why killing someone could be right. As opinions are taken in, subjectivity becomes more apparent.

Going back to the logical side of things. Facts! I wouldn't say that in my opinion, atoms exist. Regardless my opinion, atoms exist. When it comes to facts, opinions are irrelevant. Some people treat science as if it's a religion. They choose not to believe in science due to personal experiences and the word of mouth of others. In their opinion, science is wrong and evil. We know science is not a religion, but a self-correcting process that explains the natural world. Some people believe the earth is 6,000 years old, even though mountains of evidence easily disputes it. If you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, you are WRONG, and that is neither subjective or opinionated. The earth IS about 4.5 billion years old.

On Morality (Google search definition. Seems about right though)

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
2. Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles.

I find morality to be subjective. Easiest example is murder. It's definitely not objective. If a woman is being raped and she somehow manages to kill her attacker, I don't see anything wrong here. But that's just my opinion and only reflects on its subjectivity.