Is morality objective or subjective?

[Terrapin Station]

That's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective.

That's obviously not always true!

If you are going to keep defaulting to the exceptions I will except your exceptions till you are exceptionally exhausted to except exceptions.

What's an example of a "point" obtaining independently of persons?

[Skepdick]

You don't understand the distinction between morality and other things if you think that death by a gamma ray burst is morally wrong.

Morality requires agency.

And that's why you are fucking stupid.

Death by asteroid is not "morally wrong", so I guess you'll organise the popcorn and we can sing kumbaya for the extinction.

[Skepdick]

What's an example of a "point" obtaining independently of persons?

Idiot. I am a constructivist. You haven't figured that out yet ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... f_science)

Constructivism opposes the philosophy of objectivism, embracing the belief that a human can come to know the truth about the natural world not mediated by scientific approximations with different degrees of validity and accuracy.

And then... This constructivist (while opposing the philosophy of objectivism) is saying that human extinction is objectively wrong.

In so far as the words "objectivity" and "wrong" have any nominal moral meaning.

You keep conflating social norms (behaviour of agents) with morality (human survival and well-being).

Your conception of morality is immoral in that it places undue import on harm-by-humans.

[Terrapin Station]

Idiot. I am a constructivist. You haven't figured that out yet ?

Which would make it odd that you'd claim that there are points that obtain independently of persons, no?

[Skepdick]

Which would make it odd that you'd claim that there are points that obtain independently of persons, no?

It would make it a contradiction.

Which is a deficiency of language, not a deficiency of morality.

[Terrapin Station]

Which would make it odd that you'd claim that there are points that obtain independently of persons, no?

It would make it a contradiction.

So why would you claim it? (Aside from your desire to keep trolling)

[Skepdick]

So why would you claim it? (Aside from your desire to keep trolling)

Because I don't subscribe to your prescriptive social norms of non-contradiction.

I can demonstrate Dialetheism

[Terrapin Station]

So why would you claim it? (Aside from your desire to keep trolling)

Because I don't subscribe to your prescriptive social norms of non-contradiction.

I can demonstrate Dialetheism

Sure, so you're a constructivist, but you claim that points can obtain independently of persons. So why when I asked you to give an example did you just talk about being a constructivist rather than giving an example of an objective point? How about the example now?

[Skepdick]

Sure, so you're a constructivist, but you claim that points can obtain independently of persons. So why when I asked you to give an example did you just talk about being a constructivist rather than giving an example of an objective point? How about the example now?

Here is a logical system which I constructed in which P ∧ ¬P ⇔ True.

Thus empirically violating the LNC.

non-contradiction.png

You have some deep misunderstanding of what logic is and what it's good for...

[Terrapin Station]

Sure, so you're a constructivist, but you claim that points can obtain independently of persons. So why when I asked you to give an example did you just talk about being a constructivist rather than giving an example of an objective point? How about the example now?

Here is a logical system which I constructed in which P ∧ ¬P ⇔ True.

Thus empirically violating the LNC.

non-contradiction.png

You have some deep misunderstanding of what logic is and what it's good for...

How about the example of a person-independent point now?

[Skepdick]

How about the example of a person-independent point now?

So, as a nominalist, what do you think humans nominally use the word "objective" to refer to if human-independence is Philosophically impossible?

[Terrapin Station]

How about the example of a person-independent point now?

So, as a nominalist, what do you think humans nominally use the word "objective" to refer to if human-independence is Philosophically impossible?

Isn't it that you think that [person]-independence is philosophically impossible and possible, thus there can be a person-independent point? (The latter being something you claimed.) So can you give the example of the person-independent point now?

[Skepdick]

Isn't it that you think that [person]-independence is philosophically impossible and possible, thus there can be a person-independent point? (The latter being something you claimed.) So can you give the example of the person-independent point now?

Why? It's not at all my view that objectivity is person-independence.

That's YOUR view.

Objectivity is a socially and subjective construct in my view. It's a function of consensus.

So when I say that extinction is objectively wrong I am not using your conception of objectivity. But you sure are mis-interpreting me as if I am.

[Terrapin Station]

Isn't it that you think that [person]-independence is philosophically impossible and possible, thus there can be a person-independent point? (The latter being something you claimed.) So can you give the example of the person-independent point now?

Why? It's not at all my view that objectivity is person-independence.

That's YOUR view.

Objectivity is a socially and subjective construct in my view. It's a function of consensus.

Right, so what was the exception to "that's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective."

An exception is _______?

[Terrapin Station]

Objectivity is a socially and subjective construct in my view. It's a function of consensus.

By the way, the above is a way of saying, "I'll be forwarding a lot of argumentum ad populums."

It's a pledge to conformism.