[Sweetie]

Yes. But it is only my subjective opinion that a painting is beautiful, or a poem wonderful.

Your subjective opinion is that a painting is beautiful. I don't know that this says anything as pertaining to my arguement at all, for this reason. X painting is beautiful to you, Y painting is beautiful to me. Now Newman, in his "Essay in Aid of a Grammer of Assent" began by assuming that there was a thing called conscience which included the 'sense of the beautiful." Granted, I find the work too dry to get through it though I may one day, but what I'm thinking is that it does not matter whether or not you or I agree that a painting is beautiful, it needs only matter that there is such a thing as the sense of the beautiful in existence, and I call that objectively true. If it is true that I sense the beautiful then it is true that there is a sense that exists to sense it.

Now, the sense of the beautiful requires your existence in order to exist. Your existence is dependent upon factors, such as a mother and a father, and upon a moral code. King Herod, if he still existed and had power can say that all two year old males may die and thence your sense of the beautiful did not develop in order to exist. If you grew to be old enough so that the sense of the beautiful is devolped and recognized consciously, then you have a moral code that enabled that to be. If your moral code dictated that burning the house down was good, you may die with your code. If it dictated that burning another's house down is good, you may die because they disagree. It is required thence, that "you may live" is simply true in order to be able to form subjective opions which need not be true, they may be only true to you, in fact, it is not required that this sense exists at all, so Chesterton would address the "problem of pleasure."

Too, if you have no moral code you have prevented yourself from acting and deciding anything at all which can get you killed, prevent your survival, just as easily as an unreasonable moral code could.

So, what I'm seeing in my mind at present is that your subjective opinion about whether or not a painting is beautiful necessitates nothing. There is nothing to say that you should think the painting is beautiful, there is nothing to say that I should agree with you which is not the nature of the case of morality, but at least, a painting must exist in order to think it beautiful and a sense of the beautiful must exist in order to think that it is.

I don't promote it because I think it's rational. I don't even think it's possible to promote a moral code, except by making very small changes to the way others think and feel - emotional appeals, perhaps.

If you don't promote a way of living or a moral code that is rational then is it irrational? Do you choose to live irrationally?

But how it is done is not the issue. As I stated previously, it is impossible that we assume that I may live and I may not live at the same time. A moral code must make decisions about one or the other.

That's right. Me claiming that those people were 'wrong' would be like trying to claim someone was 'wrong' when they told me they didn't think a song was particularly beautiful. How can an experience possibly be 'wrong', any more than it can be 'wrong' to find coffee disgusting?

Coffee, murder?

Regardless, hold on a moment. If I subjectively experience that something is wrong, this means the same thing as I would prefer it if that thing wasn't happening.

What if you prefer not to live? What if your moral code, your "preferences" are built on the notion that you shall not do what causes another suffering and what if you prefer not to live and therefore take your own life, what if that questions whether or not another may live and you have caused/helped along the death and suffering of millions?

If I'd prefer it if that thing wasn't happening, surely the most sensible thing to do would be to go out and try to stop that thing happening? Assuming it mattered to me so much (my preference was so strong) that I wanted to go out and stop it.

Perhaps they may not prefer it that you step on their toes and try to prevent them doing what they will to do?