Total Posts:178|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Subjective Morality

tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 2:42:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There's been a lot of talk about Subjective Morality vs Objective Morality and the like. It seems as if SM is being treated as a moral code in and of itself and then being compared to an actual moral code. This cannot be correct because SM is not a code of morals; if it were, it would invalidate itself.

In my opinion, Subjective Morality isn't a moral code per se, but is instead a tool to aid in the study of moral codes in general. As one such tool, it doesn't attempt to show that any moral code is superior to any other and so it takes no sides. This allows it to encompass an extremely wide diversity of moral codes some of which might otherwise be dismissed by say OM. But this view point does have its limitations.

First, SM cannot be a moral code as it has no code-- it basically stipulates that moral codes are opinions and not facts. Like the statement "Pulp Fiction is a great movie" cannot really be true or false, but an opinion because there is no objective way to prove that it is true. Also, if SM were one of those codes then it would itself be no more right or wrong than any other code as it itself would also be an opinion and not a provable fact which of course then means that morality might be objective.

Second, SM cannot be used to build a moral code as it cannot differentiate worth or quality between existing moral codes or new moral codes. SM says that moral/immoral depends on "the current accepted standards & there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs" (Wiki.) Also, "In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances" (Wiki.) So it boils down to what the majority of the "society believes," or the majority of the "culture believes," or the most common in "history," or what the "individual person believes." In other words, SM says that morality is an opinion-- something that cannot be proven true or false but can instead be only polled. This leads to "most common" or "current accepted standards"-- majority rule or rule by mob. And in other cases, this it leads to those with the power dictating morality-- might makes right.

SM is a nice POV looking from the "outside" in, but it cannot give you a foundation or help build a moral code. Isn't it funny that it's always the "other guy's" morality that's the opinion and not our own?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 3:13:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It is correct that subjective morality is not a moral code. It is instead a view on what morality is. It's not a question of ethics, but one of meta-ethics:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It's one possible answer to what the meaning and nature of moral judgments is. It can probably not build an ethical system in itself, but it is helpful to ask these questions when you try to analyze the question, so that you *can* build a system of ethics.

For example: The morality is very different of you base it n humanity than if you base it on the Bible. But you can only base it on the Bible if morality is objective and given by God. But if it is, why do not all recognize it as such? And why does the morality shown in the old testament seem so brutal and evil to modern Christianity? This is hard to answer if morality is objective.

But with a subjective view, it becomes easy: The bible isn't the basis of our morality, we are as a human race.
So prove me wrong, then.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 3:45:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
regebro ,

I think you agree, at least in the first half of your post, but then you disagree (& contradict) in the second half of the post.

For example: The morality is very different of you base it n humanity than if you base it on the Bible. But you can only base it on the Bible if morality is objective and given by God...
Agree, because there is no other thing it could be but objective, as you have stated previously that Subjective Morality is not itself moral code.

But if it is, why do not all recognize it as such? And why does the morality shown in the old testament seem so brutal and evil to modern Christianity? This is hard to answer if morality is objective.
Well, I think it's hard to answer these questions regardless. Again, there is no other option as SM is not a moral code. You could always choose not to believe in this particular code.

But with a subjective view, it becomes easy: The bible isn't the basis of our morality, we are as a human race.
Disagree. First, the Bible is the basis of morality for many people. Second, nothing's been made easier as the questions weren't answered but simply ignored and deemed irrelevant. Third, SM is not a moral code so it cannot replace Biblical morality.

If you base your morality on humanity, it is still objective; there may be veritable cornucopia of viewpoints, but it they are still objective.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 8:56:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 3:45:18 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
regebro ,

I think you agree, at least in the first half of your post, but then you disagree (& contradict) in the second half of the post.

For example: The morality is very different of you base it n humanity than if you base it on the Bible. But you can only base it on the Bible if morality is objective and given by God...
Agree, because there is no other thing it could be but objective, as you have stated previously that Subjective Morality is not itself moral code.

Ah, you seem to think that Objective Morality is a moral code. It isn't. It is exactly like Subjective Morality, just an answer to questions about the nature of morality. It does not, in itself, mean a particular moral code.

In fact, amongst those who argue for an objective moral code, each seems to have a different moral code, even though they all argue it's objective.

But if it is, why do not all recognize it as such? And why does the morality shown in the old testament seem so brutal and evil to modern Christianity? This is hard to answer if morality is objective.
Well, I think it's hard to answer these questions regardless.

No...those question get really easy if you assume that morality is subjective. The answer is "They were written by different people with different moral codes".

Again, there is no other option as SM is not a moral code. You could always choose not to believe in this particular code.

This is true. You can always choose to not believe in a particular moral code. Doesn't that indicate that morality is subjective?

But with a subjective view, it becomes easy: The bible isn't the basis of our morality, we are as a human race.
Disagree. First, the Bible is the basis of morality for many people.

Yes. Many people. But not *all* people. Hence, it's subjective. QED:

Second, nothing's been made easier as the questions weren't answered but simply ignored and deemed irrelevant.

Which was pretty easy.

Third, SM is not a moral code so it cannot replace Biblical morality.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

If you base your morality on humanity, it is still objective; there may be veritable cornucopia of viewpoints, but it they are still objective.

Nope, That's not what it means.

Value Theory and Meta-ethics is a complex and confusing subject. A discussion forums is probably not the best place to teach it, and I sure as heck isn't the best teacher. Anybody know a good book about the topic?
So prove me wrong, then.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 4:17:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
In what sense is anything 'above' anything else without an Object to be nearer to?
Without the atmosphere how is one bird flying higher than another?
Without objectivity there can be no subjectiveness.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 5:41:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
In what sense is anything 'above' anything else without an Object to be nearer to?

Without the atmosphere how is one bird flying higher than another?

One word answer: satellites. If the atmosphere in this alternate universe in which you live is the ultimate judge of what is above another thing, how could satellites exist above the atmosphere.

Also, would the concept of above not exist on the moon since the moon has no atmosphere? Do you not think through statements you make? It would seem these problems with your logic should be obvious if you thought about it.

It astounds me that someone could make it through school without being taught the most basic of ideas. But here it goes, I am guessing this is falling on deaf ears, but I might as well try. The term aboveis a relative term that indicates the relative position of two objects in some frame of reference.

The key idea that I am sure you will not be able to grasp is that the frame of reference used when we judge whether something is "above" another thing on Earth is relative to something, usually sea level or if we want accuracy we use the origin of the Earths gravitational field. When one object is further from sea level or the origin of Earth's gravitational field than another object it is said to be "above" it.

But the frame of references are completely subjective and different frame of references are used when appropriate. It wouldn't make much sense to say Mars is above Venus using this reference. Instead we might use a frame of reference that features the sun at the center and then use that measurement to say Mars is above Venus (if we were standing on the Sun) or Mars is further from the sun to Venus (a statement that indicates the frame of reference we are using).

The other concept you seem to miss is that scale does not need nor does it often have a limit. In fact, for measurement purposes, the scale only requires a reference point from which to originate measurement, but this does not even indicate that this is a point that nothing can be "below". There is no point at which "nothing can be above" which is the error in your thinking when you always claim that it has to have something to be "nearer" to. Otherwise, as I already pointed out, how do you measure something that is above the atmosphere if the term "above" just indicates how close something is to the atmosphere (which also indicates you don't understand what the atmosphere is, but that is another discussion).

Let me give you an example that hopefully will help this make sense to you. We say an airplane is "above" sea level because it is physically located higher than sea level and not because the airplane is "closer to the atmosphere than sea level" as you erroneously desire it to be. Or we might say one airplane is "above" another airplane because one airplane is 5000ft above sea level and another one is 10,000ft above sea level and not because the one airplane is nearer to the atmosphere or some magical sky wizard or anything else. The term above is a relative term.

Now, when talking about morality the same is true. To evaluate the morality of an action, a frame of reference is created and then actions are evaluated to see which is more desirable. The more desirable action could then be said to be "above" the other action (better or more moral would be a better term).

So an example would be to create a frame of reference that says "actions can be evaluated on how much happiness they create without causing suffering". In this frame, we could say helping a person in need is "above" stealing from someone. Helping a person in need creates happiness and stealing from someone created suffering which makes for an easy evaluation. And this is what moral philosophy does, it attempts to create and argue for the best frame of references for which we can evaluate actions.

So you see, I don't know if you just made up this idea that "above" requires something to be "closer to" or if you are just repeating something you were told, but hopefully it is obvious to you now that this is not the case. But this is the problem with religion, it discourages you from thinking and encourages you to simply go with whatever you have been told, no matter how erroneous that information might be.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 7:12:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
regebro ,

What seemed to be an agreement is now a disagreement. Let me see if I can remedy that.

Ah, you seem to think that Objective Morality is a moral code. It isn't. It is exactly like Subjective Morality, just an answer to questions about the nature of morality. It does not, in itself, mean a particular moral code.
This is true. SM and OM aren't in and of themselves moral codes they are POVs from opposite perspectives. SM attempts to see morality from the outside in and OM attempts to see it from the inside out.

In fact, amongst those who argue for an objective moral code, each seems to have a different moral code, even though they all argue it's objective.
That's right. That's because all of the moral codes think that they are objective and that everybody else's is wrong.

But if it is, why do not all recognize it (OM) as such? And why does the morality shown in the old testament seem so brutal and evil to modern Christianity? This is hard to answer if morality is objective.
Well, I think it's hard to answer these questions regardless.
No...those question get really easy if you assume that morality is subjective. The answer is "They were written by different people with different moral codes".
But SM is not a moral code and ignoring the question isn't really answering it.

Again, there is no other option as SM is not a moral code. You could always choose not to believe in this particular code.
This is true. You can always choose to not believe in a particular moral code. Doesn't that indicate that morality is subjective?
No. What I am saying above is that you can always choose to believe in a different code.

But with a subjective view, it becomes easy: The bible isn't the basis of our morality, we are as a human race.
Disagree. First, the Bible is the basis of morality for many people.
Yes. Many people. But not *all* people. Hence, it's subjective. QED...
There is no moral code that is agreed upon by all people; however, this doesn't mean that there's a Subjective Moral code. It just means people are in disagreement.

Second, nothing's been made easier as the questions weren't answered but simply ignored and deemed irrelevant.
Which was pretty easy.
Sure, it was easy not to answer the questions but it did not "answer the questions easily" as you claimed it would.

Third, SM is not a moral code so it cannot replace Biblical morality.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
No I was not, you were. You are the one that claimed that SM could replace Biblical morality and I disputed that point precisely because it's "apples to oranges" (i.e. SM is not a moral code & Biblical morality is.)

If you base your morality on humanity, it is still objective; there may be veritable cornucopia of viewpoints, but it they are still objective.
Nope, That's not what it means.
Well, if basing a moral code on humanity is not objective, then it would have to mean that it was based on SM and that's not possible. You have agreed that SM is not a moral code and cannot be used to create one, ergo it is objective.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 9:46:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 5:41:02 AM, Floid wrote:
In what sense is anything 'above' anything else without an Object to be nearer to?

Without the atmosphere how is one bird flying higher than another?

One word answer: satellites. If the atmosphere in this alternate universe in which you live is the ultimate judge of what is above another thing, how could satellites exist above the atmosphere.

Also, would the concept of above not exist on the moon since the moon has no atmosphere? Do you not think through statements you make? It would seem these problems with your logic should be obvious if you thought about it.

It astounds me that someone could make it through school without being taught the most basic of ideas. But here it goes, I am guessing this is falling on deaf ears, but I might as well try. The term aboveis a relative term that indicates the relative position of two objects in some frame of reference.

The key idea that I am sure you will not be able to grasp is that the frame of reference used when we judge whether something is "above" another thing on Earth is relative to something, usually sea level or if we want accuracy we use the origin of the Earths gravitational field. When one object is further from sea level or the origin of Earth's gravitational field than another object it is said to be "above" it.

But the frame of references are completely subjective and different frame of references are used when appropriate. It wouldn't make much sense to say Mars is above Venus using this reference. Instead we might use a frame of reference that features the sun at the center and then use that measurement to say Mars is above Venus (if we were standing on the Sun) or Mars is further from the sun to Venus (a statement that indicates the frame of reference we are using).

The other concept you seem to miss is that scale does not need nor does it often have a limit. In fact, for measurement purposes, the scale only requires a reference point from which to originate measurement, but this does not even indicate that this is a point that nothing can be "below". There is no point at which "nothing can be above" which is the error in your thinking when you always claim that it has to have something to be "nearer" to. Otherwise, as I already pointed out, how do you measure something that is above the atmosphere if the term "above" just indicates how close something is to the atmosphere (which also indicates you don't understand what the atmosphere is, but that is another discussion).

Let me give you an example that hopefully will help this make sense to you. We say an airplane is "above" sea level because it is physically located higher than sea level and not because the airplane is "closer to the atmosphere than sea level" as you erroneously desire it to be. Or we might say one airplane is "above" another airplane because one airplane is 5000ft above sea level and another one is 10,000ft above sea level and not because the one airplane is nearer to the atmosphere or some magical sky wizard or anything else. The term above is a relative term.

Now, when talking about morality the same is true. To evaluate the morality of an action, a frame of reference is created and then actions are evaluated to see which is more desirable. The more desirable action could then be said to be "above" the other action (better or more moral would be a better term).

So an example would be to create a frame of reference that says "actions can be evaluated on how much happiness they create without causing suffering". In this frame, we could say helping a person in need is "above" stealing from someone. Helping a person in need creates happiness and stealing from someone created suffering which makes for an easy evaluation. And this is what moral philosophy does, it attempts to create and argue for the best frame of references for which we can evaluate actions.

So you see, I don't know if you just made up this idea that "above" requires something to be "closer to" or if you are just repeating something you were told, but hopefully it is obvious to you now that this is not the case. But this is the problem with religion, it discourages you from thinking and encourages you to simply go with whatever you have been told, no matter how erroneous that information might be.

No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)
In the same way, any moral action is either closer to the highest possible Object (God) or further away from Him.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 11:29:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)


Let me guess, you think the Earth is flat don't you? Be honest.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 11:49:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Reductio ad absurdum,

"For example, consider the proposition Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (literally: 'for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell'. This is also known as Ad Coelum.
A legal reductio ad absurdum argument against the proposition might be:
Suppose we take this proposition to a logical extreme. This would grant a land owner rights to everything in a cone from the center of the earth to an infinite distance out into space, and whatever was inside that cone, including stars and planets. It is absurd that someone who purchases land on earth should own other planets, therefore this proposition is wrong." (Wiki.)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 1:04:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 11:29:42 AM, Floid wrote:
No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)



Let me guess, you think the Earth is flat don't you? Be honest.

No, as the Bible clearly teaches it is a globe I'll go along with the photographic evidence..
The Cross.. the Cross.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 1:10:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 1:04:27 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 11:29:42 AM, Floid wrote:
No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)



Let me guess, you think the Earth is flat don't you? Be honest.

No, as the Bible clearly teaches it is a globe I'll go along with the photographic evidence..

GAAA--GAAA---GAAASP! DATC BELIEVES IN SCIENCE!

More biblical scripture supports a flat earth than a round earth. http://www.answering-christianity.com...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 1:33:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 1:10:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:04:27 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 11:29:42 AM, Floid wrote:
No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)



Let me guess, you think the Earth is flat don't you? Be honest.

No, as the Bible clearly teaches it is a globe I'll go along with the photographic evidence..

GAAA--GAAA---GAAASP! DATC BELIEVES IN SCIENCE!

More biblical scripture supports a flat earth than a round earth. http://www.answering-christianity.com...

Non-Christians cannot, may not, discern scripture to their own demon inspired ends.
The Cross.. the Cross.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 1:37:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 1:33:18 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:10:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:04:27 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 11:29:42 AM, Floid wrote:
No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)



Let me guess, you think the Earth is flat don't you? Be honest.

No, as the Bible clearly teaches it is a globe I'll go along with the photographic evidence..

GAAA--GAAA---GAAASP! DATC BELIEVES IN SCIENCE!

More biblical scripture supports a flat earth than a round earth. http://www.answering-christianity.com...

Non-Christians cannot, may not, discern scripture to their own demon inspired ends.

No, I'm showing YOU that YOU are lying to yourself! Come towards the TRUTH Datc!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 1:57:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 1:37:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:33:18 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:10:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:04:27 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 11:29:42 AM, Floid wrote:
No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)



Let me guess, you think the Earth is flat don't you? Be honest.

No, as the Bible clearly teaches it is a globe I'll go along with the photographic evidence..

GAAA--GAAA---GAAASP! DATC BELIEVES IN SCIENCE!

More biblical scripture supports a flat earth than a round earth. http://www.answering-christianity.com...

Non-Christians cannot, may not, discern scripture to their own demon inspired ends.

No, I'm showing YOU that YOU are lying to yourself! Come towards the TRUTH Datc!

I'm not entirely sure how one lies to oneself.. do mean mistaken?
If so, I can assure you I know exactly what I'm talking about: People do not understand the Bible simply because they do not 'stand under' it's authority.. this is a universal principle that applies to all things.
The Cross.. the Cross.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 2:05:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 1:57:39 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:37:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:33:18 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:10:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:04:27 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 11:29:42 AM, Floid wrote:
No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)



Let me guess, you think the Earth is flat don't you? Be honest.

No, as the Bible clearly teaches it is a globe I'll go along with the photographic evidence..

GAAA--GAAA---GAAASP! DATC BELIEVES IN SCIENCE!

More biblical scripture supports a flat earth than a round earth. http://www.answering-christianity.com...

Non-Christians cannot, may not, discern scripture to their own demon inspired ends.

No, I'm showing YOU that YOU are lying to yourself! Come towards the TRUTH Datc!

I'm not entirely sure how one lies to oneself.. do mean mistaken?
If so, I can assure you I know exactly what I'm talking about: People do not understand the Bible simply because they do not 'stand under' it's authority.. this is a universal principle that applies to all things.

The bible can't be the word of a god, simply because it contradicts the very fact the Earth is round!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 2:07:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 2:05:34 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:57:39 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:37:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:33:18 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:10:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:04:27 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 11:29:42 AM, Floid wrote:
No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)



Let me guess, you think the Earth is flat don't you? Be honest.

No, as the Bible clearly teaches it is a globe I'll go along with the photographic evidence..

GAAA--GAAA---GAAASP! DATC BELIEVES IN SCIENCE!

More biblical scripture supports a flat earth than a round earth. http://www.answering-christianity.com...

Non-Christians cannot, may not, discern scripture to their own demon inspired ends.

No, I'm showing YOU that YOU are lying to yourself! Come towards the TRUTH Datc!

I'm not entirely sure how one lies to oneself.. do mean mistaken?
If so, I can assure you I know exactly what I'm talking about: People do not understand the Bible simply because they do not 'stand under' it's authority.. this is a universal principle that applies to all things.

The bible can't be the word of a god, simply because it contradicts the very fact the Earth is round!

But as it does not it can be right?
The Cross.. the Cross.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 2:09:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 2:07:50 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 2:05:34 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:57:39 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:37:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:33:18 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:10:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:04:27 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 11:29:42 AM, Floid wrote:
No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)



Let me guess, you think the Earth is flat don't you? Be honest.

No, as the Bible clearly teaches it is a globe I'll go along with the photographic evidence..

GAAA--GAAA---GAAASP! DATC BELIEVES IN SCIENCE!

More biblical scripture supports a flat earth than a round earth. http://www.answering-christianity.com...

Non-Christians cannot, may not, discern scripture to their own demon inspired ends.

No, I'm showing YOU that YOU are lying to yourself! Come towards the TRUTH Datc!

I'm not entirely sure how one lies to oneself.. do mean mistaken?
If so, I can assure you I know exactly what I'm talking about: People do not understand the Bible simply because they do not 'stand under' it's authority.. this is a universal principle that applies to all things.

The bible can't be the word of a god, simply because it contradicts the very fact the Earth is round!

But as it does not it can be right?

Not necessarily. It says the world is flat. Any document that says the world is flat shouldn't be used as a base for understanding the universe.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 2:13:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 2:09:12 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 2:07:50 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 2:05:34 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:57:39 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:37:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:33:18 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:10:30 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/26/2009 1:04:27 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 11:29:42 AM, Floid wrote:
No. Outside of the atmosphere there is NO above/below or up/down.
As the atmosphere is the highest thing possible it IS the object that something is closer to (taller/higher) or further away from. (shorter/lower)



Let me guess, you think the Earth is flat don't you? Be honest.

No, as the Bible clearly teaches it is a globe I'll go along with the photographic evidence..

GAAA--GAAA---GAAASP! DATC BELIEVES IN SCIENCE!

More biblical scripture supports a flat earth than a round earth. http://www.answering-christianity.com...

Non-Christians cannot, may not, discern scripture to their own demon inspired ends.

No, I'm showing YOU that YOU are lying to yourself! Come towards the TRUTH Datc!

I'm not entirely sure how one lies to oneself.. do mean mistaken?
If so, I can assure you I know exactly what I'm talking about: People do not understand the Bible simply because they do not 'stand under' it's authority.. this is a universal principle that applies to all things.

The bible can't be the word of a god, simply because it contradicts the very fact the Earth is round!

But as it does not it can be right?

Not necessarily. It says the world is flat. Any document that says the world is flat shouldn't be used as a base for understanding the universe.

No, it does not. So we can.
The Cross.. the Cross.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 2:19:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 2:13:21 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 2:09:12 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Not necessarily. It says the world is flat. Any document that says the world is flat shouldn't be used as a base for understanding the universe.

No, it does not.

You are now denying Gods word, and will burn in hell. Congratulations.
So prove me wrong, then.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 2:46:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 2:19:45 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/26/2009 2:13:21 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 2:09:12 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Not necessarily. It says the world is flat. Any document that says the world is flat shouldn't be used as a base for understanding the universe.

No, it does not.

You are now denying Gods word, and will burn in hell. Congratulations.

I'm defending it and will live for all eternity in the Glorious joy of the presence of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ so..
your a little way off..
The Cross.. the Cross.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 2:59:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Can we go back to the topic?
Also, if you're gonna BS can you at least not quote the previous comments?

Thanks.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 2:29:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 2:59:33 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Can we go back to the topic?
Also, if you're gonna BS can you at least not quote the previous comments?

Thanks.

There's plenty of of space for everyone to take the topic wherever it goes..
The Cross.. the Cross.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 3:10:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 2:46:18 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 2:19:45 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/26/2009 2:13:21 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/26/2009 2:09:12 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Not necessarily. It says the world is flat. Any document that says the world is flat shouldn't be used as a base for understanding the universe.

No, it does not.

You are now denying Gods word, and will burn in hell. Congratulations.

I'm defending it and will live for all eternity in the Glorious joy of the presence of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ so..
your a little way off..

The Bible clearly states the earth is flat, stands on pillars and has four corners (although also a circle. Which of course is self-contradictory).

By denying this, you deny the words of God and will burn in hell. There is no salvation for you.
So prove me wrong, then.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 8:09:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
DATCMOTO,
Of course there's plenty of space but it needn't filled with crap. It's aesthetically undesired & a waste of time to ween through it.

Also, the bible is not a science book.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 8:20:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
regebro , you never responded to...

Ah, you seem to think that Objective Morality is a moral code. It isn't. It is exactly like Subjective Morality, just an answer to questions about the nature of morality. It does not, in itself, mean a particular moral code.
This is true. SM and OM aren't in and of themselves moral codes they are POVs from opposite perspectives. SM attempts to see morality from the outside in and OM attempts to see it from the inside out.

In fact, amongst those who argue for an objective moral code, each seems to have a different moral code, even though they all argue it's objective.
That's right. That's because all of the moral codes think that they are objective and that everybody else's is wrong.

But if it is, why do not all recognize it (OM) as such? And why does the morality shown in the old testament seem so brutal and evil to modern Christianity? This is hard to answer if morality is objective.
Well, I think it's hard to answer these questions regardless.
No...those question get really easy if you assume that morality is subjective. The answer is "They were written by different people with different moral codes".
But SM is not a moral code and ignoring the question isn't really answering it.

Again, there is no other option as SM is not a moral code. You could always choose not to believe in this particular code.
This is true. You can always choose to not believe in a particular moral code. Doesn't that indicate that morality is subjective?
No. What I am saying above is that you can always choose to believe in a different code.

But with a subjective view, it becomes easy: The bible isn't the basis of our morality, we are as a human race.
Disagree. First, the Bible is the basis of morality for many people.
Yes. Many people. But not *all* people. Hence, it's subjective. QED...
There is no moral code that is agreed upon by all people; however, this doesn't mean that there's a Subjective Moral code. It just means people are in disagreement.

Second, nothing's been made easier as the questions weren't answered but simply ignored and deemed irrelevant.
Which was pretty easy.
Sure, it was easy not to answer the questions but it did not "answer the questions easily" as you claimed it would.

Third, SM is not a moral code so it cannot replace Biblical morality.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
No I was not, you were. You are the one that claimed that SM could replace Biblical morality and I disputed that point precisely because it's "apples to oranges" (i.e. SM is not a moral code & Biblical morality is.)

If you base your morality on humanity, it is still objective; there may be veritable cornucopia of viewpoints, but it they are still objective.
Nope, That's not what it means.
Well, if basing a moral code on humanity is not objective, then it would have to mean that it was based on SM and that's not possible. You have agreed that SM is not a moral code and cannot be used to create one, ergo it is objective.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 8:50:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/27/2009 8:20:24 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
regebro , you never responded to...

I didn't see the response, sorry.

Ah, you seem to think that Objective Morality is a moral code. It isn't. It is exactly like Subjective Morality, just an answer to questions about the nature of morality. It does not, in itself, mean a particular moral code.
This is true. SM and OM aren't in and of themselves moral codes they are POVs from opposite perspectives. SM attempts to see morality from the outside in and OM attempts to see it from the inside out.

I don't agree with that last part. I think they see it from the same perspective but has different answers to the questions. But then I find it blatantly obvious that there is no objective source to morality.

In fact, amongst those who argue for an objective moral code, each seems to have a different moral code, even though they all argue it's objective.
That's right. That's because all of the moral codes think that they are objective and that everybody else's is wrong.

Thereby proving that morality is subjective.

No...those question get really easy if you assume that morality is subjective. The answer is "They were written by different people with different moral codes".
But SM is not a moral code and ignoring the question isn't really answering it.

Yes, we know it's not a moral code. I don't understand why you keep repeating it. :-) What question do you think is being ignored?

Again, there is no other option as SM is not a moral code. You could always choose not to believe in this particular code.
This is true. You can always choose to not believe in a particular moral code. Doesn't that indicate that morality is subjective?
No. What I am saying above is that you can always choose to believe in a different code.

Yes. Doesn't that indicate that morality is subjective?

Yes. Many people. But not *all* people. Hence, it's subjective. QED...
There is no moral code that is agreed upon by all people; however, this doesn't mean that there's a Subjective Moral code. It just means people are in disagreement.

*A* subjective moral code? The whole point of subjective morality is that there is not *a* moral code, but that everybody has his own. As you say yourself: SM is not a moral code. Neither is OM. But people who claim that morality is objective claim that there is ONE moral code. People that claim morality is subjective says that every one has their own moral code.

Second, nothing's been made easier as the questions weren't answered but simply ignored and deemed irrelevant.
Which was pretty easy.
Sure, it was easy not to answer the questions but it did not "answer the questions easily" as you claimed it would.

If a question is deemed irrelevant, then it doesn't need answering, and often is not answerable. "How long is a piece of string?"

You are the one that claimed that SM could replace Biblical morality

No, I have never said anything even remotely like that.

If you base your morality on humanity, it is still objective; there may be veritable cornucopia of viewpoints, but it they are still objective.
Nope, That's not what it means.
Well, if basing a moral code on humanity is not objective, then it would have to mean that it was based on SM and that's not possible.

Look, SM oand OM are TYPES of morality. Views on what morality IS. You constantly try to make them into a moral code. You can't do that. Stop it. It makes no sense and makes the angles of reasoning weep. It's like demanding that you build a car out car brands, or plant an apple tree by digging a hole and screaming "Granny Smith, please" into the hole.

You make cars from steel and plastic. Apple trees come from apples. They do not come from their types. You do not make a car or an apple tree by looking at it.

You have agreed that SM is not a moral code and cannot be used to create one, ergo it is objective.

That sentence makes no logical sense.
So prove me wrong, then.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 12:02:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
regebro,

I didn't see the response, sorry.
I kinda figured as much, that's why I reposted. No biggie. Always glad to be able to have a civilized discussion.

This is true. SM and OM aren't in and of themselves moral codes they are POVs from opposite perspectives. SM attempts to see morality from the outside in and OM attempts to see it from the inside out.
I don't agree with that last part. I think they see it from the same perspective but has different answers to the questions. But then I find it blatantly obvious that there is no objective source to morality.
It's clear that SM & OM do not have the same perspective; I don't see how you can claim that they do. Their perspectives are the answers to the questions. There are many objective sources that can be used to build a moral code; in fact it's the only way to build one. One cannot build a moral code using subjective sources. This is a point we agreed on. (I said in initial post: "SM cannot be used to build a moral code as it cannot differentiate worth or quality between existing moral codes or new moral codes")

In fact, amongst those who argue for an objective moral code, each seems to have a different moral code, even though they all argue it's objective.
That's right. That's because all of the moral codes think that they are objective and that everybody else's is wrong.
Thereby proving that morality is subjective.
Not necessarily; all it proves is that people aren't in agreement. In other words, it shows that if you take into account all (or many) objectively moral codes you can show that morality in general can be seen as subjective BUT that still does not make any moral code subjective.

No. What I am saying above is that you can always choose to believe in a different code.
Yes. Doesn't that indicate that morality is subjective?
No. What I am saying is that one can pick between the many different objective moral codes and NOT any subjective moral codes.

*A* subjective moral code? The whole point of subjective morality is that there is not *a* moral code, but that everybody has his own. As you say yourself: SM is not a moral code. Neither is OM. But people who claim that morality is objective claim that there is ONE moral code. People that claim morality is subjective says that every one has their own moral code.
YES! Everyone has there own OBJECTIVE MORAL code. That is the point. All SM really says is that it's aware that people have different opinions about what they consider is their own OBJECTIVE moral code.

If a question is deemed irrelevant, then it doesn't need answering, and often is not answerable. "How long is a piece of string?"
Minor point; I agree with you in principal. However, that question(s) is very relevant and important to many people. Anyways, agreed.

You are the one that claimed that SM could replace Biblical morality
No, I have never said anything even remotely like that.
Perhaps I misunderstood when you said: "...The morality is very different of you base it n humanity than if you base it on the Bible...The bible isn't the basis of our morality, we are as a human race." I guess you were just speaking hypothetically.

Look, SM oand OM are TYPES of morality. Views on what morality IS. You constantly try to make them into a moral code. You can't do that. Stop it. It makes no sense and makes the angles of reasoning weep. It's like demanding that you build a car out car brands, or plant an apple tree by digging a hole and screaming "Granny Smith, please" into the hole.

You make cars from steel and plastic. Apple trees come from apples. They do not come from their types. You do not make a car or an apple tree by looking at it.
From your analogy, I can see why you are frustrated about what I have said. Perhaps you have misunderstood. I have always maintained the position that SM and OM are not moral codes; I may have not been so clear at all times, but that is what I have been trying to convey. Consequently, your analogy is not a direct analog for what I have said.

But let's take the car analogy to draw an analog to my point:
You make cars (object) out of plastic (object), metal (object), etc. and not out of brands (ideas). This is true and I agree with you. SM and OM can be like the ideas; i.e. they can be the plans or concepts of building a moral code (car.) Consequently, moral codes are like the cars: they are the objects that result from the actual implementations of those plans. with me so far?

The point is that SM (plans/ideas) cannot be used to build a moral code (car) because it only leads to more (plans/ideas) and nothing substantial; whereas, OM (plans/ideas) can be used to build a moral code (car) because it deals with objects and not ideas. SM gets you nowhere because it cannot differentiate or assign value to the objects where OM can. In fact SM says there ARE NO objects to begin with. SM is a tool to LOOK at all of the different moral codes in the world and that's it; all you can do is look. OM is a tool that allows you to assign value to things which can then help you to choose what belongs in the code or not.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 2:07:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I didnt REALLY want to type here, because i dont really want to butt into an already-ongoing discussion, so i will apologize in advance.

At 8/27/2009 12:02:37 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
It's clear that SM & OM do not have the same perspective; I don't see how you can claim that they do. Their perspectives are the answers to the questions. There are many objective sources that can be used to build a moral code; in fact it's the only way to build one. One cannot build a moral code using subjective sources. This is a point we agreed on. (I said in initial post: "SM cannot be used to build a moral code as it cannot differentiate worth or quality between existing moral codes or new moral codes")

Heres a subjective Source:
I dont want to die.

This is a source that is based on my desire. It is not universal, as i can bring you a thousand people who do want to die. Therefore, it is subjective. This is a basis for building a moral code, by creating a society which includes people with the same subjective thoughts.

Not necessarily; all it proves is that people aren't in agreement. In other words, it shows that if you take into account all (or many) objectively moral codes you can show that morality in general can be seen as subjective BUT that still does not make any moral code subjective.

If all moral codes, are subjective when grouped, then clearly the individual moral codes are also subjective. If you want to simply take one moral code, from one culture, at one point in time, and concentrate on only that, then you might have something. But Moral codes exist everywhere, and change at different points in history. This is exactly why Moral codes are subjective.

YES! Everyone has there own OBJECTIVE MORAL code. That is the point. All SM really says is that it's aware that people have different opinions about what they consider is their own OBJECTIVE moral code.

If thats what the other guy said as well, then i disagree with both of you.
Again, "i dont want to die". This is a subjective desire. If you build up on it, and create a society of like-minded people who also dont want to die, and therefore, forgoe the right to kill each other in order to live, now youve created a moral code to which the basis is Subjective.

From your analogy, I can see why you are frustrated about what I have said. Perhaps you have misunderstood. I have always maintained the position that SM and OM are not moral codes; I may have not been so clear at all times, but that is what I have been trying to convey. Consequently, your analogy is not a direct analog for what I have said.

But let's take the car analogy to draw an analog to my point:
You make cars (object) out of plastic (object), metal (object), etc. and not out of brands (ideas). This is true and I agree with you. SM and OM can be like the ideas; i.e. they can be the plans or concepts of building a moral code (car.) Consequently, moral codes are like the cars: they are the objects that result from the actual implementations of those plans. with me so far?

The point is that SM (plans/ideas) cannot be used to build a moral code (car) because it only leads to more (plans/ideas) and nothing substantial; whereas, OM (plans/ideas) can be used to build a moral code (car) because it deals with objects and not ideas. SM gets you nowhere because it cannot differentiate or assign value to the objects where OM can. In fact SM says there ARE NO objects to begin with. SM is a tool to LOOK at all of the different moral codes in the world and that's it; all you can do is look. OM is a tool that allows you to assign value to things which can then help you to choose what belongs in the code or not.

But this is the point about Subjective and Objective morals. Objective, is more along the lines of "This is the plan, and we are all in agreeance with this plan." Subjective, is more along the lines of "I have a plan, and he has a plan. Both our plans are different."

This is the point. If you have a trillion people, you are bound to find atleast 2 people within that trillion, who have the same opinion. However, just because you have a collective of people who share the same opinion, doesnt make it Objective. Infact, by the very definition of Subjectivity, it would still make it subjective. And this is what we see with Morality. We have different groups of people, with each group having different opinions, scattered around the globe. When we compare those groups and their opinions, with the people 2000 years ago, they are also different. Each society has built up their moral codes based on such consensus of opinions. Most of them do match. But many do not. There are a group of people in the 4th century called the Circumcellions who kept killing themselves. Clearly there is no society today, that still practices such beliefs. However, their mere existance shows how societies exist, with conflicting opinions, desires, about their way of life.

Anyways, if you thought it was rude of me to interject, feel free to tell me, and i apologize, but i like a good discussion as well. :D
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 2:28:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/27/2009 12:02:37 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
This is true. SM and OM aren't in and of themselves moral codes they are POVs from opposite perspectives. SM attempts to see morality from the outside in and OM attempts to see it from the inside out.
I don't agree with that last part. I think they see it from the same perspective but has different answers to the questions. But then I find it blatantly obvious that there is no objective source to morality.
It's clear that SM & OM do not have the same perspective; I don't see how you can claim that they do. Their perspectives are the answers to the questions.

Depends on what you mean with perspective, I guess.

There are many objective sources that can be used to build a moral code;

There are in fact none.

in fact it's the only way to build one.

Apparently not.

One cannot build a moral code using subjective sources.

Of course you can. I have a moral code. It is entirely subjective and based only on the principle of "what I think seems to make a good moral code". It's perfectly possible. The question is if you can find any objective source at all. The Bible is not an objective source, because it is not an objective fact that it is the objectively correct morality. Your choice of the bible is a subjective choice, which makes the morality you base on the bible a subjective morality.

This is a point we agreed on. (I said in initial post: "SM cannot be used to build a moral code as it cannot differentiate worth or quality between existing moral codes or new moral codes")

And neither can OM. OM is just a view. You can't build anything except other views on it.

That's right. That's because all of the moral codes think that they are objective and that everybody else's is wrong.
Thereby proving that morality is subjective.
Not necessarily; all it proves is that people aren't in agreement.

OK, it's not proof, just a string indicator.

BUT that still does not make any moral code subjective.

It makes all but possibly one subjective. Because an objective moral code has to be objectively true. And only one can be.

No. What I am saying above is that you can always choose to believe in a different code.
Yes. Doesn't that indicate that morality is subjective?
No. What I am saying is that one can pick between the many different objective moral codes and NOT any subjective moral codes.

Uh, but that is obviously backwards. You can pick between any subjective moral codes. But if you believe morality is objective, then you can not pick. So here you somehow have gotten everything completely upside down and inside out.

*A* subjective moral code? The whole point of subjective morality is that there is not *a* moral code, but that everybody has his own. As you say yourself: SM is not a moral code. Neither is OM. But people who claim that morality is objective claim that there is ONE moral code. People that claim morality is subjective says that every one has their own moral code.
YES! Everyone has there own OBJECTIVE MORAL code.

Then it's not objective, per definition.

That is the point. All SM really says is that it's aware that people have different opinions about what they consider is their own OBJECTIVE moral code.

Yes, but it doesn't become objective because they consider it to be. That per definition means it's subjective.

Maybe we need to look into what subjective and objective means?

You are the one that claimed that SM could replace Biblical morality
No, I have never said anything even remotely like that.
Perhaps I misunderstood when you said: "...The morality is very different of you base it n humanity than if you base it on the Bible...The bible isn't the basis of our morality, we are as a human race." I guess you were just speaking hypothetically.

No. That is not hypothetical. I do not see how you from that get to subjective morality should replace the biblical moral code. SM is not a moral code and can't replace it, first of all. And if you mean to say that *one* subjective moral code should replace it, remember that I claim that the biblical moral code *is* subjective (and self-contradictory).

But let's take the car analogy to draw an analog to my point:
You make cars (object) out of plastic (object), metal (object), etc. and not out of brands (ideas). This is true and I agree with you. SM and OM can be like the ideas; i.e. they can be the plans or concepts of building a moral code (car.) Consequently, moral codes are like the cars: they are the objects that result from the actual implementations of those plans. with me so far?

Yes, but you are wrong. It's more a case of SM and OM being ideas of what the car should be. OM "It's a Sportscar". SM "It's a SUV".

The point is that SM (plans/ideas) cannot be used to build a moral code (car) because it only leads to more (plans/ideas) and nothing substantial; whereas, OM (plans/ideas) can be used to build a moral code (car) because it deals with objects and not ideas.

And this is false. OM and SM are exactly equivalent in this. They both deal only with plans and ideas and neither can lead to anything substantial.

SM gets you nowhere because it cannot differentiate or assign value to the objects where OM can.

No it can't. OM can not assign any values.

"We want a sportscar!"
"Ok, so what color should we have?"
"Sportscar color!"
"And that is?"
"Sportcar color!"
"Ferrari red? British racing green? Lotus black?"
"Sportscar color!"

"We want a SUV!"
"Ok, so what color should we have?"
And so on.

You can't assign any values to anything just by saying "Morality is objective". In fact, you can't assign values from anything else than values, full stop. This is also often said as "You can't go from is to ought", or the naturalistic fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
So prove me wrong, then.