First off, I would like to give my deepest apologies for delaying so long in responding. Something about trying to hold down two jobs and a family just kind of keeps me from being able to get on the internet that much.
Because objective morality is more practical. A philisophical debate is generally concerned with the logical truth and nothing else. In this context, subjective morality is more defensible. However, in politics, 'objective' morals can be put forward because common ground can be agreed upon. These same ideas would not hold up under scrutiny since the common ground is not normally justified.
For example, most Americans agree with and support their constitution. Therefore, this could be used as common ground between Americans in order to debate objective morals. Any argument they came up with would immediatly fall down when encountered by anyone who did not simply assume the authority of the constitution, however.
Excellent answer Fluffy!!!!!! The only problem I see with it is the philosophical ties with politics which is the reason behind me starting this thread. I know that many would consider Karl Marx's book, "The Communist Manifesto", just as much of a philosophical one as a political one. As a matter of fact, Karl Marx was considered quite the philosopher in his time which is why the Catholic church had a serious problem with him and communism to the point of the Pope publically asking for God's favor when the Nazi's invaded Russia (U.S.S.R.) at the time which floored me when I saw a video of it in High Shool German classes. Even when taking into consideration the Constitution of the U.S., when people start debating it original intent, they always take into consideration the writer's and signers' religions and philosophies since they know the role that religion and philosophy played in these peoples' decision to recognize this constitution.
With that being noted, is it truly logical to separate Philosophy and Politics? If it is not, than the original question of this thread stands : Why is it that those who disagree with religious morals claim that morality is subjective in philosophical arenas and then protest objective moral offenses in political arenas?
I'm not sure if I understand your question too, but I'm guessing it is because they are upset that the "subjective" morality action choices of others did not agree with their own "subjective" choices.
I must admit that I like the bluntness of this answer although it kind of "jumps the gun" without further explaination.
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
