Subjective morality is an oxymoron. If it’s subjective, then it’s an opinion. If it’s an opinion, then it’s not a moral standard. (which by definition applies to everyone equally)
Nobody who talks about morality is talking about their values. They are talking about standards which are universal and objective.
If it’s an opinion, then it’s not a moral standard. (which by definition applies to everyone equally)
That's not true. Morality never has to assume equal application. That's a particularly modern concept of ethics based off of "universalism". Many ethics in history have supremacy at it's core.
Nobody who talks about morality is talking about their values. They are talking about standards which are universal and objective.
Again, neither of these are true. Morality as a concept can be spoken about without invoking your personal values. Universalism is basically a western concept stemming from Christianity.
It actually does. If the basis of ethics is power (supremacy as you say) then it’s subjective, based on the whims of whoever has the most strength. If it’s subjective, then how is it different from opinion?
If morality can be subjective, then what distinguishes it from opinion? Why even have both words?
If the basis of ethics is power (supremacy as you say)
Uh, these are not similar concepts, and it isn't correct to frame ethics from power.
Ethics from power is merely "Command Theory" of ethics, which is to say: not a valid ethic at all. There is no consistent standard in Command Theory, it is merely an appeal to authority and nothing else. Morality forms the philosophical foundation for ethics. Command Theory is effectively an amoral "ethic", which doesn't make sense, because there is no actual grounding to the ethic. It's not an ethic at all.
Supremacism is the assertion that the system being analyzed regards itself not only as the best system, but that every other system is so inferior as it should likely be destroyed. This is not necessarily an argument from power, but a form of zealotry.
If morality can be subjective, then what distinguishes it from opinion? Why even have both words?
Because opinions refer simply to a personal assessment. Morality refers to the philosophical grounding on which a society's ethic is based on. Opinions may deviate from an ethic, because opinions are not a social structure.
Many opinions can create an ethic (by virtue of opinions giving way to folkways, giving way to morays, and then being formalized into an ethic), but they are not the same. It's like taking one grain of sand and saying "why would you even have a word like 'dune' when it's still just made of sand?"
There is no consistent standard possible when you believe morality is subjective. That's what subjective means, "up to individual determination".
Morality refers to the philosophical grounding on which a society's ethic is based on. Opinions may deviate from an ethic, because opinions are not a social structure.
Can you give an example? It seems to me that if there is some philosophical grounding for an ethic, then that has to be objective, and so any morality with philosophy as a basis would also by nature be objective.
Subjective morality is an oxymoron. If it’s subjective, then it’s an opinion. If it’s an opinion, then it’s not a moral standard. (which by definition applies to everyone equally)
Nobody who talks about morality is talking about their values. They are talking about standards which are universal and objective.
That's not true. Morality never has to assume equal application. That's a particularly modern concept of ethics based off of "universalism". Many ethics in history have supremacy at it's core.
Again, neither of these are true. Morality as a concept can be spoken about without invoking your personal values. Universalism is basically a western concept stemming from Christianity.
It actually does. If the basis of ethics is power (supremacy as you say) then it’s subjective, based on the whims of whoever has the most strength. If it’s subjective, then how is it different from opinion?
If morality can be subjective, then what distinguishes it from opinion? Why even have both words?
Uh, these are not similar concepts, and it isn't correct to frame ethics from power.
Ethics from power is merely "Command Theory" of ethics, which is to say: not a valid ethic at all. There is no consistent standard in Command Theory, it is merely an appeal to authority and nothing else. Morality forms the philosophical foundation for ethics. Command Theory is effectively an amoral "ethic", which doesn't make sense, because there is no actual grounding to the ethic. It's not an ethic at all.
Supremacism is the assertion that the system being analyzed regards itself not only as the best system, but that every other system is so inferior as it should likely be destroyed. This is not necessarily an argument from power, but a form of zealotry.
Because opinions refer simply to a personal assessment. Morality refers to the philosophical grounding on which a society's ethic is based on. Opinions may deviate from an ethic, because opinions are not a social structure.
Many opinions can create an ethic (by virtue of opinions giving way to folkways, giving way to morays, and then being formalized into an ethic), but they are not the same. It's like taking one grain of sand and saying "why would you even have a word like 'dune' when it's still just made of sand?"
There is no consistent standard possible when you believe morality is subjective. That's what subjective means, "up to individual determination".
Can you give an example? It seems to me that if there is some philosophical grounding for an ethic, then that has to be objective, and so any morality with philosophy as a basis would also by nature be objective.