Moral Subjectivism AMA

It is the principal of the claim - you are essentially saying that due to the fact that you can do it - it is justified that others do it

More like "I can do it, but others don't know that I do it. Thus, they don't know that they're justified in doing it to me, so there are no negative effects for me."

Psychologically perhaps, but that does not negate the physical harms of being anti-social such as increased aggression, restless sleep, etc...

It doesn't negate the physical harms. It turns them into a positive because the masochist enjoys physical harms.

Yes but this is based on what is logically justified - all of these could be simple solved with a better standard which is also subjective - but there is no need.

The tyrant in this case enjoys it. No need is required.

you would still be encouraging others to do the same which would be overall net negative

Except that they can't do it to me, so there's no negative.

suppose their is someone powerful enough to hurt you, then you can't. And it is unlikely for you to be powerful enough where people can't hurt you, its unrealistic, and not likely to happen.

Yes, but they are still encouraging harm to themselves, they would be better off in the long run without harm to their goals or practices, if that is the case, a power like that, then people can harm them in more than just physical ways.

There are people more powerful than Kim Jong Un, but he gets away with harming others without any harm coming to him. It is a realistic scenario, although it only applies to a few people.

it is literally still logically unjustified.

The logic doesn't matter to the tyrant in this scenario. They enjoy harming others, and it brings no harm to themselves.

Because that would be assuming a thing that we have proven false to be correct, because then it would encourage the way of thinking that we should breed every single athletic person until there are less and less people, thereby doing more than just harm to you, but to the society that benefits you too, which would be even greater harm. 

You seem to be missing the point of the hypothetical. Such situations might be unlikely, and the specific examples I bring up might not work. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not you system would work in such a scenario.

They are still wrong to believe it.

But they don't care that they're wrong. Your argument here only holds for rational people who are interested in their own benefit. However, there are plenty of irrational people out there.

Regardless this doesn't prove that my moral system is flawed, but that not everybody will follow it, but this is true of literally everything.

Not quite. It is true that there are people who will violate any moral system. However, your particular system ties obligation to net benefit. If someone doesn't care about that, then I don't see how your system gives such a person any obligations. Other systems don't have that particular problem. For instance, in most systems of objective morality, immoral actions are immoral no matter what. In certain forms of nihilism, nothing is morally good or morally bad.

Fundamentally speaking, either you have some measure of worth or you literally die.

That's only an issue if everyone cares about dying. Take a suicide bomber for instance. The bomber actually wants to die. There are no negatives for him when he carries out the bombing.

It seems you have the same problem that is just repeated, or at least as I interpret it:

If someone does not care about net positive, then it doesn't give people obligations

It honestly doesn't matter if they care about it or not, an moral obligation is based on an ought. Not what people believe. If your response is then to say that it is subjective and not objective and therefore what authority do you have then, is also not a valid response, as the ought itself is the logical condition. This is true of all moral systems. You are human and you have a basis on which you are harmed or hurt, one should do what maximizes that as a factor of biological truth as well as what is most philosophically true. It's kind of like objecting to a syllogism because there are people who would misinterpret that syllogism, it does not logically follow.

Define what you mean specficially. I do not believe that morals can be justified by anything other than subjective values (i.e: things contingent on a mind), therefore I am a moral subjectivist

But why is human harm or benefit the standard? Why should it apply to everyone? If I'm understanding you correctly, you're applying this standard to everyone everywhere every time. It seems to me that you're taking a subjective standard and making it essentially objective.

The one other issue I have is that there doesn't seem to be any moral dimension here. Yes, it's logical for people to do what benefits them. But why is human benefit good?

Taxation is morally equivalent to forced labor.

Therefore taxation is morally equivalent to slavery

No idea and I honestly don't care, I am using the dictionary definitions and extrapolating from there, while a philosophic paper would also give me a basis for it, why can't the dictionary also be a basis?

essentially that there is some kind of perception where you have to get your morality from, and I get mine from the human perception of pleasure and suffering,