Tell me what you believe.

You even went as far as to dodge a yes or no question because you knew the answer disproves you. spouting off a deflection about efficacy when my question had nothing to do with efficacy. 

Is it objectively true that if I have a negative cue for murder, it will trigger when I witness a murder? 

Is it objectively true that this cue will trigger, even if I agree with murder? 

Okay, so you answered yes. Congratulations, you just agreed to a logical contradiction.  The statement 1 and 2 = 4  violates the law of noncontradiction because 4 would have to have the value of 2 and 1 simultaneously which is impossible because it can't be itself and not itself at the same time.  Now you try to play a word trick and say "it depends on my meaning"  this is vacuous, I made a logical statement that can only be meant one way.  Here's I'll do it like this 

A and B = C

A = 1

B = 2 

C = 4. 

1 is defined by having a value of 1 and 2 is defined as having a value of 2.  4 is equal therefore it simultaneously has the value of 2 and 1 and the same time so if you make the equation.   4 + 4 = ?    they will simultaneously equal 2 3 and 4 all at the same time.  This is what you're doing with the word morals.  

A = Edicts

B = Biological Cue. 

C = Morality. 

A and B = C.    So now Morality is simultaneously a prescriptive edict that's an abstract and a description of a physical thing.  This is a contradiction. 

The proper way to do it is. 

A or B = C   Meaning that morality can equal B or A at different times and they both count as different words.   

Moral realism guys.

I did not agree to a contradiction I agreed that you could relabel the concepts now known as 1 and 2 as 4 and 4. The groupings of objects would not change just because you use different words. I'm fairly certain we are talking past each other.

I believe There is Male jail and there is Female jail. 

Moral subjectivism doesn't corroborate any of the evidence. It's also reductio ad absurdum and requires a lot of pretending. Moral subjectivism is logically entailed by the faith-based belief that consciousness arose from matter. Moral subjectivism isn't evidence-based.

Sure, you could do it like that, but now they're not the same thing.  They're 4a and 4b because they're not logically equivalent.  This is exactly what happens with morality. 

You have to main usages for morality A and B and then you make C equal to both and since you want them to say in proper sets and the fact that we can't have category erros, we have to make Morality A and Morality B which do not count as the same thing regardless of their label.  I'm arguing for Morality B which happens on it's own.  Do we have to follow it?  No, but it still happens and it explains why people have the morals they do.  

Those two things do exist, yes. 

Tell me, do you react the same way to an execution as you do to a murder? 

If I'm watching it happen right in front of me and I know it's real, yes.  

If I see it on TV and I don't know it's real, then no but I also wouldn't react to a fake TV murder either. 

You do realize that  for it to be morality, there has to be somebody not following the rule right?  That's the whole point of it.  If everybody universally followed morality then there wouldn't even be need for the word morality.  It would just be "stuff that everybody does for some reason" 

Are both murder and execution immoral?

Yes, there is no difference.

Thank you for your contribution. I am curious however what my original interlocutor has to say.

Doesn't it depend on how you define immoral?

This is certainly true if morality is subjective. If however morality is objective then it is possible to be incorrect in ones moral assessments and this statement becomes far less certain.

I would still say yes but would consider execution worse.

Mainly on the grounds that it is putting someone's death in the public eye. 

The public will eventually be normalized by such behaviour and might even be happy at a person's death.

That would be true for public execution. The other form has a problem of not having enough evidence to take someone's life. The problem I find is that it can be politicized and not actually be used to bring about justice or some sort of agreed right by the people. The link does not say what I am saying but does say 13 people were wrongfully put on capital punishment/execution.

according to our cues they are. 

Okay, I'm going to translate that into you saying that our senses are physical  and not part of our consciousness  correct? 

Side note, have you ever heard of propositional logic?  specifically, do you know what a logical negation is?  I was curious what you thought about them assuming you know what I'm talking about.      

I believe in moral particularism, so I agree with this. wholeheartedly 

It seems like most of our contention is over how we define things, So I'll just grant this: 

Cues are objective. 

We can assess them subjectively or objectively.

You might disagree with the second point, but for the purposes of what I'm going into, I'll say that objectivity is not important for me, because it's really not but I'm a stickler for fleshing out definitions, lol. 

I'm a moral particularist and here's my basic model for morality. 

After looking at moral behaviors it seems that the underline theme is harm vs benefit.  (whether Subj  or Obj)

We can make objective decisions off of this standard. 

I believe there are no absolute morals, but rather every situation has an absolute answer. 

For example,   Murder is not absolutely wrong nor is execution, however, we could say that in situation X, murder and execution are always absolutely wrong based on how we prioritize morals from the harm/benefit standard. 

What I am willing to agree upon is that once we add the harm/benefit standard, we will necessarily have to add some extra subjective standards to harm/benefit in order to have a way of prioritizing our moral cues.  

For instance, we can't say loss of life is the highest priority based off harm/benefit alone because we don't really know the implications of death for the individual after the fact. 

So we have to make a subjective assessment, that people generally don't want to find out what's on the other end right away. 

So ultimately, there is a subjective element involved.  My main point was simply that the root CAUSE of morals is actually objective and that subjective things "like holy books"  are simply piggybacking onto it.  However, Objectivity is not required for my moral system. 

So here's where I get confused. 

You agree that we can make objective assessments off of subjective things.  

You agree that the cues themselves are objective. 

Why do you not think we can make objective assessments from objective things? 

I do not believe that humans can be objective at all. I'm sorry that my language was imprecise. Please allow me to clarify my position. One can make the unilateral descision to follow some subjective standard of morality and once a standard exists (any standard will do for this purpose) we can use it as a metric which would not then hypothetically require any opinion to evaluate but almost any standard, when taken to its extreme (which must be moral if morals are being judged objectively by the stamdard), tends to lead to horrifying consequences. Take my own prefered standard harm versus wellbeing. If we are completely objective with no personal opinion we might decide that killing one man and using his organs to heal five separate patients created the most wellbeing for the least harm (good of the many) but I would personally be horrified at the idea and do not find it moral. That people have morals would seem to be objectively true. That morals are anything but personal opinions (based partly on learned standards like the golden rule and partly on our nature as social organisms) does not seem to be objectively true.