It seems to me that you and I are using the words objective and subjective differently.
If I tell you that anyone who’s user name starts with “n” is evil; is that an objective or subjective morality (or moral rule)?
It is a ridiculous statement that would need backing up with sufficient evidence, morality is irrelevant to the statement.
It made it ridiculously simple because I thought that would make it easier to answer the question. It seems I failed.
What answer are you seeking? I really am earnestly trying to achieve an understanding here.
The decision that causing harm is immoral however, is entirely subjective. It cannot be otherwise.
I suspect it was designed to be ridiculous in order to make the answer easier to see. Lets try this, someone thinks it is immoral to swear. Now think very carefully about this, would it thus follow that it is objectively moral to remove everyone’s tongue?
Don’t confuse this with what you subjectively believe to be moral, apply your own rationale, that if one believes it immoral to cause conscious animals harm, then it is objectively immoral to kill and eat them.
My answer
I don’t see how this isn’t an answer, I have a problem with the question, as it is nonsensical, you can’t judge a person’s morality by their name.
Sure you can. It probably won’t be a very useful judgment…
Of course you can, it would just be subjective, as are all morals. How many babies are Christened with the name Judas do you imagine?
Why is it objectively immoral to harm or cause suffering to sentient animals? Can you give me a reason that doesn’t involve subjective opinion?
Presumably the answer is either yes or no, and I can’t figure out which you have chosen from your responses. I’m now starting to wonder if that is intentional.
The decision that causing harm is immoral however, is entirely objective. It cannot be otherwise.
You are just asserting this, and I can easily just assert the opposite to the same effect.
No, because the punishment does not fit the crime.
Also, in this instance, the assertion swearing is immoral, is subjective opinion.
Remember, my position isn’t all morality is objective, it is morality is sometimes objective.
It isn’t a question of belief, it is a fact that an animal is being harmed.
Wouldn’t this be a false dichotomy?
As there are other answers available, one of which I gave.
It seems you don’t know what false dichotomy means either… 
A logical fallacy in which a spectrum of possible options is misrepresented as an either-or choice between two mutually exclusive things.
You presented a choice A or B.
I gave an answer beyond the asserted spectrum of A or B, showing that they aren’t my only two choices.
If I am wrong here, or misunderstanding please tell me how, so I can learn.
Indeed, but since all anyone has offered is a subjective opinion that causing harm to sentient animals is wrong, then I’m not sure why you think your argument it is objectively moral is more compelling than my assertion of that fact?
You could offer a reason it is immoral to cause harm to a sentient animal that is not subjective of course, that would force me to accept my assertion is incorrect?
This rather misses the point, in my hypothetical example it is not a punishment per se, but by the rationale you have presented it would be objectively moral, if of course one believed swearing to be immoral. Do you see where you’ve taken a mis-step? It’s easily done with morality.
Can you explain why it is immoral to cause a sentient animal to suffer, without resorting to any subjective claims or arguments? I don’t believe you can, but I am intrigued to hear you try.
indeed, but can you offer an objectively moral act that doesn’t involve any subjective opinion, again I am dubious?
It is but then beliefs can also be objective facts, however it is not a fact that harming an animal is immoral, that is a subjective opinion. You keep going back to this straw man for some reason?
1 Like
No, I did more than that. I went out of my way to say “presumably” specifically so I wouldn’t have to face accusations of making a false dichotomy. I demand a retraction.
1 Like
and I agree, sometimes it is subjective, but not always.
Sure, the life of ‘sentient’ is being cut short. This is objectively true.
To claim that it is a subjective opinion that this is immoral, isn’t honest.
Harm is being caused by that life being cut short, which is objectively true, regardless as to the position of some, as they would be incorrect to state it is not immoral.
Only if I held the position that morality is always objective, which is not my position.
There are instances when it is objectively immoral, regardless of opinion, as there is an occurrence in reality where harm is being caused.
I don’t need to, as it would be dishonest to claim it isn’t immoral.
There comes a point where reality intersects with a persons perception.
Some serial killers may disagree that murdering humans is immoral, but they would be objectively wrong. We can demonstrate this by the objective fact that a human’s life is being cut short. *
*edit to remove ‘in a violent manner.’
Reality shows that harm is being caused, regardless of that serial killers perspective.
It is far harder to perceive an act that is objectively moral, and I will admit I am drawing a blank here, of course this doesn’t mean there aren’t cases.
But I still stand by my position that killing a ‘sentient’ animal is objectively immoral.
I don’t see this as a strawman, as I am not claiming it to be your position, rather than an example I am using or a position I am asserting.
If it is a strawman, I fail to see how, please explain to me why this is the case?
We are going in circles aren’t we.
I used such language previously, and I was still accused of using logical fallacies.
But whatever, I see no harm.
I’ll retract it, but I will ask for clarification that you agree it is a false dichotomy, also if you do agree, then I’d ask you retract the statement that I don’t understand what a false dichotomy is. 
edit, hold on a moment, I didn’t outrightly assert you made a false dichotomy but instead asked if it would be! so I have no need to retract anything at all! 
How are you defining violent?
I disagreed (more than once I think, but I’m not going to go back and look) twice in the past that it was a false dichotomy. The problem is it is missing a key component; I didn’t demand there were only two possible outcomes, I just listed two:
Asking if we should go left or right at the next intersection (in the real world) is not a false dichotomy.
Demanding that we can only go left or right would be.
1 Like