1. You said axioms are a given. Does this mean metaethical moral axioms can also be a given?
2. You said someone who finds something self-evidently true (an axiom) isn't about their preferences. Could you not say the same thing about metaethics?

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Before this, you said that all ethical views/stances, are based on preference. But then you said that accepting an axiom is not a preference. Well, there are axioms within metaethics, so you need to explain why some axioms are not based on preference, while others are based on preference. — chatterbears

As I mentioned in the other thread we can dispense with these terms, "subject" and "subjective" and get by just fine. It seems to me that it is the use of those terms that causes the confusion. — Harry Hindu

Odd, though, that both of these guys acknowledged his respective philosophy was most likely beyond the general understanding of the crowd to which was explicitly directed, yet decried the method for teaching it to them. — Mww

it also opens the door to bias and emotion based judgements — DingoJones

Plato held that only a few wise philosophers could infer concepts like 'justice' intuitively. The far greater number of people (including lawyers) only know them as tenuous shadows in a cave, over which they bicker as to their shape. — ernestm

It's just an indirect way of complaining about how hard life is and its difficult sometimes to raise any more nuanced an argument than, "get over it!". — Isaac

For sure we live in a society obsessed by being technically correct and I believe this is a serious threat to our liberty. In the past, we cared more about the spirit of the law, and said tyranny is going by the letter of the law. I won't argue that we are not highly concerned about technical correctness today. However, in the past there was room for a judge to say, we will overlook your violation this time, but if it happens again, you will be punished for the infraction and this one too. We relied on the wisdom of judges and didn't make the state the authority over punishments. A wise person isn't wise if s/he does not take ignorance of law into consideration.

This is not the only time in history that a society became overly concerned with technological correctness. I question if this concern for technological is a good thing? — Athena

I don't think so. Many people, myself included, regard morality as being essentially about the way we behave towards beings with a mental life (which probably means humans and other animals); it would follow from this that objective morality only appears in the universe once beings with a mental life evolve. Thus objective morality, if it exists, is not a feature of the extra-mental, but is a by-product of the evolution of mind. — Herg

although my mind is in my head, my head is in my mind, — Robert L. Wicks

I experienced this unique feeling for 3 days if I remember correctly. On the fourth day, I bought a bag of bite-sized Snickers and ate it all myself, until I felt sick. — Regi

The DNA is not identical to S but it will become an essential part of S. — Andrew4Handel

That's not even an argument, is it? Sure, I can hold the belief that Earth is flat; but, that just doesn't make it so. — Wallows

I think creating someone is clearly an act of force on them because you are in control of the outcome which profoundly effects them. — Andrew4Handel

Right, that would be the identity thesis: — SophistiCat

If the physical world is causally closed, then truth, logic, reason, and other abstract things cannot have an effect on it. — SophistiCat

No one needs to go though adversities and life experiences of overcoming-to-get-stronger, if they don't exist in the first place to need it. Why create this need for need? Why create a situation that exposes new people to lacking something that they need to fulfill? Why create a situation that exposes new people to adversity that needs to be overcome? This impulse to create these situations on behalf of someone else is more an indication of the already-living person's inability to cope with the idea of nothingness. Our restless, willful natures prevents creates the notion that a non-existent person is a sad future.. That nothingness is sad. Nothingness is nothing. A philosopher once said, the nothing "noths". Whats wrong with noth-ing? Let non-existent people stay non-existent. Why do people feel we are bearers of some Promethean fire of being that needs to be carried forth and spread? Why use future people as "bearers of knowledge" or "bearers of experience" in such a matter? Is non-existence this scary to people? Is the blessed calm of nothingness seen as a blithe that must be eradicated with the strum und drang of life? What about survival-comfort-relief-boredom-relief needs to be lived out by a future person? What pleasures need to be had, if there was no person there in the first place to care? Certainly we can see the logic that preventing harm is a good thing, and no one loses out who doesn't exist in the first place.

Forgive me, but you sound like one of those flat-earthers that insist that their opinion is valid even if science proves them wrong countless times. — Wallows

You keep using this term, "matter". I don't know what that is. — Harry Hindu

What makes a decision "wrong"? — Harry Hindu

By his very belief in universal determinism, the determinist, if he is consistent, cannot interpret his opponent's sentence " I possess free will" to be an actual claim to possess an objective property. This is because if universal determinism is true then the only objective meaning the determinist can ascribe in his opponent's sentences are the physical causes that precipitated them. — sime

That’s not how it appeared to me, that you said objective morality would be predicated on anything about mental machinations. It appeared to me you said objective morality must be predicated on both mental and non-mental machinations, — Mww