[general_re]

if you would say that there is a way morality can be understood based on how we as individuals experience things, rather than on how it affects the functioning of society. In other words, is there a subjective basis for morality at all, or is it all objective to you?

Ah, it's neither fish nor fowl to me, really. In one sense, the experiences we have are subjective and arbitrary - you experience pain, but how you feel about pain is largely arbitrary. So in that sense, the foundation is subjective. But from there, if we accept that as the foundation, then objective reason allows us to develop a full and complete system of morality.

Make sense? Think of it this way - suppose tomorrow everyone decided that pain wasn't unpleasant, and stopped feeling that pain was a bad thing. In fact, suppose everyone decided that pain was a good thing, and they enjoyed experiencing pain. If that were to happen, would it still make sense to describe inflicting pain upon others as "wrong"?

The thing itself doesn't change, only people's subjective perception of it. But we simply accept those subjective perceptions and proceed as objectively as we can from there.

[inquest]

So in that sense, the foundation is subjective. But from there, if we accept that as the foundation, then objective reason allows us to develop a full and complete system of morality.

Make sense?

I think so, since you seem to be restating what I said in #764: "It's like I said before, I can't know for sure if others can feel pain the way I do, but I can know that if they do, it would be wrong for me to inflict it on them. And, also like I said before, that is the foundation, which we then use logic to proceed from."

The thing itself doesn't change, only people's subjective perception of it.

And that seems to be a restatement of the point I was making in #772 (note the parenthetical contrasting): "I evaluate an experience (by which I mean, the end subjective result of the experience, as distinct from the stimuli which cause it, as the same stimuli might cause different experiences for different people) as being awful, and then say it would be wrong to subject others to that same experience (regardless of whatever stimuli are used to elicit it)."

But we simply accept those subjective perceptions and proceed as objectively as we can from there.

Hence, I would gather that you agree with what I was saying in #778: "And my dispute would be that if these alternate explanations rely exclusively on objective and pragmatic criteria (survival of the species, functionality of society, etc.), then they're seriously lacking."