Anyway, regardless of whether it is the right decision to believe morals are subjective it might still be a socially sanctionable decision (because it might be a little dangerous).

Morals .Why bother having any?
Wether or not one believes in the objectivity of his views does not entail apathy towards holding any moral views at all.

if you compare any two laws one will achieve the purpose better than another. the one that achieves it better is the objectively correct law. All your frivolous examples should disappear with this teatment leaving only fundimental principles

Ha ha ha! Determining the ‘better’ law is as objective as determining the right course of action, I agree with you there. Far from revealing fundamental principles it will only reveal the values of the observer.

why wont they be tolerated? because you can accumulate sufficient power to stop them and happen to disagree with them right?

If the social consensus is not to tolerate alternative views, eg. that killing anyone you like is fine, then the authority of the group will be levelled against them. It is analogous to any other kind of ethical system that has malcontents.
 

Puported by Illusive Mind

er - yes.. maybe a bit more dangerous but still comparable. A man who truely believed (harder than it sounds of course) in an absolute law preventing killing held a gun to your head you would be perfectly safe. they would not shoot in fact the gun probably isn’t even loaded. If he believes that there are no laws he may still not kill you - but he might gun or no gun.

> your argument is irrelevant to the treatment of subjectivism

you are not talking about a random sort of superficial subjectivism you are talking about “saving innocent lives” and “[morals] Why bother having any?”

> The fact is we already have in place a system of subjective rules made, followed and enforced by men. It is called “the law”.

if you compare any two laws one will achieve the purpose better than another. the one that achieves it better is the objectively correct law. All your frivolous examples should disappear with this teatment leaving only fundimental princples.

> That is, one of the principles I/we may decide to agree to is that some ethics won’t be tolerated. (eg. Killing innocent people)

why wont they be tolerated? because you can accumulate sufficient power to stop them and happen to disagree with them right? 

Puported by geniusnz

So a person who does not believe that ethical values exist in an absolute, eternal form is equivalent to a man holding a gun!

Whilst I think your argument is irrelevant to the treatment of subjectivism, I also think your premise is false.
The fact is we already have in place a system of subjective rules made, followed and enforced by men. It is called “the law”.

If everyone was a subjectivist, all this means is that they admit that there ethical values are subjective not absolute, just like the laws of the land are subjective and not absolute. This does not mean to say they sometimes apply and sometimes don’t. It means they are created through the consideration of certain basic principles (eg. Driving on the wrong side of the road should be against the law because it endangers people’s lives.)

Here in Australia, we drive on the left side of the road. Does it make any sense to suggest that this is somehow intrinsically right? No. It is a subjective law.

Do people break the law? Yes. Do people break the rules set up by religion, God yes.

I think ethical subjectivism does not entail ethical pluarilism. That is, one of the principles I/we may decide to agree to is that some ethics won’t be tolerated. (eg. Killing innocent people) Admitting that this value isn’t absolute doesn’t mean I have to accept other people’s values, though I might be more open minded in considering them. It doesn’t mean I have to tolerate people who violate it.
 

Puported by Illusive Mind

If everyone was to be subjectivist people would be more likely to break the rules that a (lets say) objectiveist religion might set up. the fact that you are not one of those people does not matter.

So you may be right on a theoretical level and yet still have an opinion that should not be tolerated. respect without tolerance ;). 

Puported by geniusnz

Values are not descriptive statements about the world; we cannot say that the preference for a family with a mother and a father is incorrect that it is somehow in conflict with empirical evidence.

You can appeal to all sorts of other ideas than ones of objective rightness. Morality is about principles and the comparison of actions in accordance with those principles.

Why bother having any? Well you don’t have to. It is not contrary to the universe or to logic, though it might be to human nature. However you will find that amoral persons tend to be outcast by society. When people say they think that avoiding taking innocent lives is right, perhaps what they are really saying is that they agree with the principle of empathy. That it is right to act towards others as you would want acted towards you. This is a value, widespread neither correct nor incorrect to hold, if you can agree to this as a starting point for your morals then you shouldn’t have too many problems, if you don’t then you’ll encounter the masses who would strongly prefer it if you did.

What do I act in accordance with this principle (mostly) because I agree with it? In what sense does your thinking (hopefully) it is right differ from this?
 

Puported by Illusive Mind

This is because subjectivism is so often used as the “lead in” to appologizing for somthing others would find abhorent. And infact one has to wonder why you hold moral beliefs at all if you are a subjectivist. you are right that you dont HAVE to abandon morals but you also dont have to have them. In fact, why do you? 

Puported by geniusnz