[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you define what you mean by "subjective morality" and please explain thoroughly what you mean by "values".


[/ QUOTE ]

Subjective morality, in its traditional philosophical sense, is the idea that there are no objective standards by which to judge individuals' moral codes. This means that any one person's morals are just as good as any other person's. There's no way to say one is better than the other. "Right" is determined for each individual person by themselves and there is no outside standard.

Values are what we act to achieve or maintain.

[ QUOTE ]
Are the ends/results what justify an action as being moral or immoral (in this case, Fred doesn't care about the shoes, thus the ends are the same; but in the moving the neck-injured person, the ends are very different, but you said the "principle" was the same). So, which is it? The ends, or the principle (motives/intentions)?


[/ QUOTE ]

The motives/intentions are what's important. Neither men acted immorally in taking off their shoes because Fred didn't care.

[ QUOTE ]
I say the ends/results is what determines "good" and "bad", but the principles/intentions/motives is what determines "right" and "wrong" (perhpaps not exclusively, as I've briefly mentioned before).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how in the world you can differentiate between the two. Sure, actions with good intentions sometimes lead to undesirable results, but that's totally beside the point. Morality is about judging decisions, not results.