Fred Welfare writes:
> Martin wrote:
> > If there is no objective morality here, then I as the
> >  bomber can refuse his demand and continue to bomb because my moral
> >  code says this bombing is moral.  Unless there is an objective
> >  morality here, Milutin cannot base his protest on it.
>
> In this case the bomber must justify why he is bombing.  If his
> justification is not acceptable, then he may not be acting morally.
> Anyway, the argument here assumes that morality is relative and that
> different morailities exist when in fact there is only one morality,
> universal morality, and even U requires a sanctioning consequence to
> have any effectiveness.  In the West, there is law and police
> enforcement to back up the universal moral code.  The moral and
> legal systems are inextricably entwined.

I think there are both subjective and objective morality, and while I
believe there is a universal morality, I don't know it.  I believe
part of the meaning of my life is to learn as much as I can about it.
Law and the police back up the moral code, and I think the problem we
are zeroing in on is that while a great many of us are willing to
*say* we believe that morality is subjective, we *behave* as if that
morality is objective.  That is, we claim to protest on allegedly
subjective moral grounds, but we expect the opponent of our protest to
behave according to *our* subjective morals.  I'm saying that if we
claim to believe morality is subjective, but we behave as if it is
objective, then we really believe it is objective and we ought to stop
saying it is subjective.  On the other hand, if we really believe
morality is subjective, then we ought to stop protesting based on that
subjective morality.

martin