You state this as if it's a fact but I think most people would disagree.
If morality is subjective, then that means there is nothing objectively wrong with murder, rape, pedophilia, chattel slavery, or any number of things that most civilized people would find abhorrent.
I'm not even trying to make a religious argument about the source of some objective morality, I don't think it's necessary to solve that to answer the "objective v. subjective" question.
This quickly devolves into semantics as you pointed out.
Do you mean that reasonably all people agree that murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. are bad? Aka if close to everyone thinks something, then that's an "objective" opinion? If so, that makes sense.
However, the parent comment may mean to say that wrong and right are qualities that humans place on things/events/communications... and I think that makes sense.
Physics/chemistry/math has nothing to say about vice and virtue.
What does physics, chemistry, or math have to say about the vice or virtue of leaded gasoline? What's the equation where the right side says "good" or "bad?"
> > Physics/chemistry/math has nothing to say about vice and virtue.
> Leaded gasoline.
Again, as GP mentioned, there's a failure in linking how (Physics/chemistry/math) imposes morality on (leaded gasoline): Any moral opinions on this subject are within the broader context of how it affects humans (negatively).
Physics/chemistry/math, in isolation, do not impose morality.
while (vice and virtue) sits in an isolated corner.
-----
I'm not going to provide the whole solution that connects the two together, since you have yet to do so yourself.
Even so, the two cannot be connected without adding the human-centric context node to the graph.
This is nothing but a roundabout way to define morality as a human-imposed construct onto concepts, which further reinforces the point that the injection of human-centric morality is the linchpin to connecting (physics/chemistry/maths) with (vice and virtue).
Morality is not something that exists in isolation: It's heavily personal-POV-centric & color-imposing.
This stands in contrast to (physics/chemistry/maths), which can be derived outside of the human experience.
> Even so, the two cannot be connected without adding the human-centric context node to the graph.
The entire graph is human-centric context. It doesn't exist outside of our PoV. If you have an undergraduate degree (or a high school diploma from last century) you've taken classes on this specific subject and forgotten what you've learned.
> This stands in contrast to (physics/chemistry/maths), which can be derived outside of the human experience.
Think about this statement. How would you possibly know if something can be derived from outside of the human experience? We only have the human experience as a base. Your claim requires access to a peer-level-or-greater intelligence that we have not met.
> > Even so, the two cannot be connected without adding the human-centric context node to the graph.
> The entire graph is human-centric context. It doesn't exist outside of our PoV.
(physics/chemistry/maths) can exist outside of the human-centric context: To claim otherwise is to axiomatically require a form of untouchable uniqueness to humans, which is not true.
> If you have an undergraduate degree (or a high school diploma from last century) you've taken classes on this specific subject and forgotten what you've learned.
I'm ignoring the ad-hominem attack in this sentence.
> > This stands in contrast to (physics/chemistry/maths), which can be derived outside of the human experience.
> Think about this statement. How would you possibly know if something can be derived from outside of the human experience? We only have the human experience as a base. Your claim requires access to a peer-level-or-greater intelligence that we have not met.
The only change needed is to switch out the axiom
"Humans are universally unique intelligence-wise"
with
"Humans are not universally unique intelligence-wise"
From this change, the rest follows suit: If humans are not universally unique, then a non-human that's as-intelligent-or-better can re-derive (physics/chemistry/maths) within their non-human context with a strictly >0 probability of occurrence, even if the probability is infinitesimally tiny.
Given the >0 probabilistic nature of the whole logical chain being true, this means that the idea of (physics/chemistry/maths) being a universally "humans-only" experience is cannot be held true as it contradicts with the derived logic chain.
The proof of existence of said non-human(s) is not needed to prove the logical axioms themselves.
Intelligence has nothing to do with this. Humans are universally unique in their point of view. We're filtering reality through limited but specific senses and making arbitrary classifications of the data, and we're doing it on this planet after centuries of building on top of earlier concepts.
> > If you have an undergraduate degree (or a high school diploma from last century) you've taken classes on this specific subject and forgotten what you've learned.
> I'm ignoring the ad-hominem attack in this sentence.
It's not an attack, there's a hole in your thinking because you've forgotten part of your education and I'm letting you know about it. Your initial assumptions are off base due to this.
Unfortunately this format doesn't really lend itself to this kind of conversation, which I've been enjoying quite a bit. We need a whiteboard and some coffee.
There isn't anything objectively wrong with those. You can still derive a functioning society from selfish principles. I don't want to live in a society where I can just get murdered, so I am fine with outlawing murder.
This is philosophically valid, but also has the advantage of being how moral systems are actually constructed in practice.
Some kinds of mores are more cooperative, and some are more destructive, and especially self-destructive. The good is usually associated with more cooperative and mutually supportive traits, and evil, with destructive. The good usually prevails in the long term because cooperation is more efficient than destruction.
So yes, there are objective correlates in good and evil traits, even though they are rather statistical than unequivocally causal.
