What I realized

Would you say, "breaking an immoral law is moral"?

Would you say, "breaking an immoral law is moral"?

Got any examples?

Refusing to move to the back of the bus.

Who do you think creates THE LAW?

For those of you that believe morality is subjective, a big reason I have a hard time grasping the concept is choice, assuming that it’s true, when comparing it to other unequivocally subjective things there’s a difference and that’s choice, take for example...

Morality is regulated by emotion

No one practices nihilism in terms of morality.

If you truly believe this morality is inherently fallacious considering appeal of emotion is a fallacy, and like I’ve said many times before nihilism would by definition be true.

That’s not applicable to anything I’ve said, in terms of morality if there’s no proof it’s objective or subjective then the only logical conclusion to draw from that realization is it’s nonexistent ergo nihilism.

Either you don’t know what appealing to emotion is, or you’re a bad faith actor.

Please do a quick search of what the fallacy means.

No one practices the belief of nihilism in terms of morality. Is that better?

How does one prove that morality exists apart from subjective/intersubjective opinion?

Because I don’t view it as a concept within our mind, I view it as objectively proven, and if I’m wrong about this then that still doesn’t make subjective morality correct, it would make nihilism true by default.

Nihilism entails the rejection of all principals and values. There is nothing about accepting the subjective nature of morality that requires this, and in fact believing in a self described subjective moral system already makes one by definition, not a nihilist.

For something to be objectively proven to be true it must be empirically demonstrable. Can you demonstrate in any empirical sense the rightfulness or wrongfulness of any moral judgement?

"One day we will learn that the heart can never be totally right if the head is totally wrong. Only through the bringing together of head and heart--intelligence and goodness--shall man rise to a fulfillment of his true nature." -MLK Jr.

I know that it’s one the many examples of fallacies, if you took your own advice and did a quick search you would find that appeal of emotion is a fallacy.

It doesn’t matter, because I never argued that either. As for the last question it’s through God but if God doesn’t exist neither does objective morality and if you’re an advocate of subjective morality you would have to prove it’s existence.

But obviously you didn’t know what it meant and now you’re just acting in bad faith.

Morality by definition is the distinction between right and wrong, not what Is right and wrong (it’s situation). Do you agree?

Clearly it’s not that obvious if you can’t even explain yourself, and how am I acting in bad faith (another unproved assertion)?

Yeah sure even though I don’t see the difference between those two definitions.

It being an example of a fallacy isn’t in dispute.  We were discussing you didn’t know what it meant. You’re clearly obfuscating because you know you’re wrong.

In other words a good or bad action in one circumstance is not the same in another.

I’m not obfuscating, I wouldn’t have initiated the word if I didn’t know what it meant, what I want to know is what made you come to that conclusion? Because that’s a call you’ve yet to answer.

I had a hard time following that, are you saying good circumstances are different from bad ones?

Unless you consider it both an argument and emotionally manipulative. 

For example: Thou shalt not kill.

What if it was in self-defence?

Can you see any problems with that commandment?

I do

I don’t know too many instances where murder as self defense is a necessary decision,

considering there’s many ways to get the upper hand on an opponent without killing them but I hear what you’re saying, context matters in regards to morality which I agree but in order for that to be proven true there has to be some outside force other than humans that validates that belief otherwise there’s no case you can make for it other than an emotional (fallacious) one. 

if you’re not convinced of objective morality then so be it but if you’re going to be convinced of subjective morality then just like objective morality it requires proof otherwise nihilism is true

Wouldn’t you say that once someone dies and goes to either heaven or hell that would empirically demonstrate that they were an objectively moral or immoral person? I would say so if that were to happen.

Why do you consider “Morality is regulated by emotion” both an argument and emotionally manipulative? 

How are emotions fallacious when it comes to morality? In everyday life we think of how ourselves and others will feel when making decisions, which all fall under morality. What is the value of morality without emotion? Humans are moral agents, not text. Do you talk to God directly?

First of all, nihilism isn’t a claim so saying “nihilism is true” is incoherent.

Second, I just explained to you how nihilism not only does not follow from belief in a subjective moral system but is incompatible with it. Do you not understand what I wrote on this?

We have morality. That does not need to be proven, at least not in the context of this debate. We’re debating whether morality is objective or subjective.

When we talk about demonstrating something it goes without saying that we are talking about doing so while we’re alive. But let’s set that aside...

God does not solve any of the problems that objective moralists throw at subjective morality.

Because deeming something as “moral” is an argument,

and since that argument is regulated by emotion than that’s what you’re attempting to appeal to which is manipulative.

I somewhat agree but before we go any further are you an atheist?