Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

The CONTRADICTION, here, is OBVIOUS.

And,

The HYPOCRISY, here, SPEAKS for ITSELF.

Spell out the contradiction and hypocrisy. I genuinely don't understand what you mean. No block caps and coat-trailing, please. Keep calm and drink tea.

STOP TELLING me WHAT TO DO. Ask politely. AND, then I might oblige.

ALSO, if you STOPPED ASSUMING, then you MIGHT START UNDERSTANDING.

You wrote:

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect. Although I have NEVER advocated ANY so-called "consensus theory", what you are essentially saying here is ANY reasoning AT ALL based on, if there is a 'consensus', then the 'consensus' making truth is just INCORRECT.

However, then you 'try to' use the reasoning that it is BECAUSE OF 'consensus' between "english speakers" that makes the CLEAR DISTINCTION between 'facts' and 'opinions'.

Therefore, this MEANS that you are being CONTRADICTORY, and a HYPOCRITE, if you say and CLAIM, which you do, that 'consensus' does NOT make ANY 'thing' true, BUT it is 'consensus' that makes the DISTINCTION between 'facts' and 'opinions' true.

Do you UNDERSTAND, now?

If NOT, then are you ABLE to EXPLAIN what 'it' is EXACTLY, that you, supposedly, can NOT YET SEE? But, which "other" "english speakers" can VERY CLEARLY SEE, and also UNDERSTAND by the way.

You are confused. Consensus on the use of words - such as 'fact', 'opinion' and 'objectivity' and 'truth' - has nothing to do with a consensus theory of truth. Which is what you do advocate, even if you don't realise it. The idiotic claim that facts are opinions entails it. But, tell you what, I can't be bothered to plough back through your interminable ramblings to find a demonstration.

And if you use any block caps in a post from now on, I won't bother reading it, let alone replying. About which you may not give a toss. Which suits me.

[Skepdick]

You are confused. Consensus on the use of words - such as 'fact', 'opinion' and 'objectivity' and 'truth' - has nothing to do with a consensus theory of truth. Which is what you do advocate, even if you don't realise it. The idiotic claim that facts are opinions entails it. But, tell you what, I can't be bothered to plough back through your interminable ramblings to find a demonstration.

And if you use any block caps in a post from now on, I won't bother reading it, let alone replying. About which you may not give a toss. Which suits me.

One of you is confused, for sure. From where I am looking it's definitely you.

If you are appealing to normative semantics/normative use of language then you are necessarily appealing to the consensus theory of truth.

In the absense of consensus...

I can use the term "red" to describe this color.
You can use the term "red" to describe this color.
Age can use the term "red" to describe this color.
Henry can use the term "red" to describe this color.

We have lots of colors, I tell you! And we need to figure out how to agree on which one we actually call "red".

[Age]

Spell out the contradiction and hypocrisy. I genuinely don't understand what you mean. No block caps and coat-trailing, please. Keep calm and drink tea.

STOP TELLING me WHAT TO DO. Ask politely. AND, then I might oblige.

ALSO, if you STOPPED ASSUMING, then you MIGHT START UNDERSTANDING.

You wrote:

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect. Although I have NEVER advocated ANY so-called "consensus theory", what you are essentially saying here is ANY reasoning AT ALL based on, if there is a 'consensus', then the 'consensus' making truth is just INCORRECT.

However, then you 'try to' use the reasoning that it is BECAUSE OF 'consensus' between "english speakers" that makes the CLEAR DISTINCTION between 'facts' and 'opinions'.

Therefore, this MEANS that you are being CONTRADICTORY, and a HYPOCRITE, if you say and CLAIM, which you do, that 'consensus' does NOT make ANY 'thing' true, BUT it is 'consensus' that makes the DISTINCTION between 'facts' and 'opinions' true.

Do you UNDERSTAND, now?

If NOT, then are you ABLE to EXPLAIN what 'it' is EXACTLY, that you, supposedly, can NOT YET SEE? But, which "other" "english speakers" can VERY CLEARLY SEE, and also UNDERSTAND by the way.

You are confused. Consensus on the use of words - such as 'fact', 'opinion' and 'objectivity' and 'truth' - has nothing to do with a consensus theory of truth.

I doubt you could TWIST and DISTORT 'things' ANY FURTHER HERE.

1. I have NEVER mentioned absolutely ANY 'thing' about some so-called "consensus theory". You brought this 'theory' up, and then are refuting it. Which is all well and good, but this 'theory' has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what I have SAID here. Is this understood, by you?

2. Do NOT TELL 'me' that I am CONFUSED.

3. Is there a 'consensus' on the use of the word 'truth'?

Which is what you do advocate, even if you don't realise it.

Talk about LET US TWIST 'things' AROUND SO that people do NOT LOOK AT what 'it' IS that "peter holmes" has SAID and CLAIMED here.

I have NEVER advocated ANY such so-called "consensus theory". And, to ASSUME otherwise is a completely and utter MISINTERPRETATION, or LIE.

Now, instead of 'trying to' DEFLECT from the Fact that you have YET to define what the word 'objective' even means, or refers to, to you, you going OFF on this TANGENT now is just PURE LUDICROUS and RIDICULOUS.

The idiotic claim that facts are opinions entails it. But, tell you what, I can't be bothered to plough back through your interminable ramblings to find a demonstration.

And, I will TELL you what, this is because you COULD NOT FIND 'it'.

EVERY word 'thought' AND 'expressed thought, it can be argued,' IS just a 'view', or 'opinion'.

And, ALL 'facts' come from human 'thought', and 'EXPRESSED', through words.

So, how about instead of 'trying to' HIDE you just come out and INFORM us of what is the ACTUAL DISTINCTION between 'facts' AND 'opinions'.

Or, are you REALLY NOT YET ABLE TO?

And if you use any block caps in a post from now on, I won't bother reading it, let alone replying.

This is just AN EXCUSE for your OWN INABILITY here in backing up and supporting YOUR CLAIM: "There are absolutely NO 'moral objectives' WHATSOEVER, FOREVER MORE".

If you will NOT so-call "BOTHER" ANYMORE, then this is PROOF that you are just an INCAPABLE human being.

About which you may not give a toss. Which suits me.

Starting a thread, and NOT BEING ABLE to back up and support the CLAIM YOU MAKE in that thread PROVES that your CLAIM is just Wrong AND Incorrect.

And this has BEEN PROVED True ALREADY by what I have WRITTEN, SHOWN, and REVEALED here.

USING the EXCUSE, "I am NOT reading your posts because SOME letters are capitalized", just SHOWS and REVEALS how Truly SCARED you REALLY are of being PROVED Wrong here, ANYMORE. Also, if you RUN AWAY because of your OWN INABILITY, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me, AS WELL.

[Age]

You are confused. Consensus on the use of words - such as 'fact', 'opinion' and 'objectivity' and 'truth' - has nothing to do with a consensus theory of truth. Which is what you do advocate, even if you don't realise it. The idiotic claim that facts are opinions entails it. But, tell you what, I can't be bothered to plough back through your interminable ramblings to find a demonstration.

And if you use any block caps in a post from now on, I won't bother reading it, let alone replying. About which you may not give a toss. Which suits me.

One of you is confused, for sure. From where I am looking it's definitely you.

If you are appealing to normative semantics/normative use of language then you are necessarily appealing to the consensus theory of truth.

In the absense of consensus...

I can use the term "red" to describe this color.
You can use the term "red" to describe this color.
Age can use the term "red" to describe this color.
Henry can use the term "red" to describe this color.

We have lots of colors, I tell you! And we need to figure out how to agree on which one we actually call "red".

ACCEPTANCE. That is; the one we ACCEPT as 'red', is the one which IS (known as) 'red'.

What 'it' is 'we' AGREE UPON and ACCEPT is what makes the 'thing', (which 'we' are AGREEING UPON and ACCEPTING), what 'it' IS, and the Truth, as well, of what 'it' IS. Just like 'water is H20' is true SOLELY BECAUSE OF AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

WHY is 'this' seem SO HARD and SO DIFFICULT for SOME people to SEE and UNDERSTAND?

By the way what you POINT OUT and SHOW with those 'colored' examples, and questions, here, and in other threads, would come to LIGHT, much sooner, to those people who can NOT YET SEE and UNDERSTAND here, if the people you pose the questions to would just answer, and thus CLARIFY, the clarifying questions, Honestly.

[Skepdick]

[/color]584 user_id=15099]
You are confused. Consensus on the use of words - such as 'fact', 'opinion' and 'objectivity' and 'truth' - has nothing to do with a consensus theory of truth. Which is what you do advocate, even if you don't realise it. The idiotic claim that facts are opinions entails it. But, tell you what, I can't be bothered to plough back through your interminable ramblings to find a demonstration.

And if you use any block caps in a post from now on, I won't bother reading it, let alone replying. About which you may not give a toss. Which suits me.

One of you is confused, for sure. From where I am looking it's definitely you.

If you are appealing to normative semantics/normative use of language then you are necessarily appealing to the consensus theory of truth.

In the absense of consensus...

I can use the term "red" to describe this color.
You can use the term "red" to describe this color.
Age can use the term "red" to describe this color.
Henry can use the term "red" to describe this color.

We have lots of colors, I tell you! And we need to figure out how to agree on which one we actually call "red".

ACCEPTANCE. That is; the one we ACCEPT as 'red', is the one which IS (known as) 'red'.

Blah blah. Empty words.

You accept this one as 'red'.
I accept this one as 'red'.

We accept different things.

[Sculptor]

Spell out the contradiction and hypocrisy. I genuinely don't understand what you mean. No block caps and coat-trailing, please. Keep calm and drink tea.

STOP TELLING me WHAT TO DO. Ask politely. AND, then I might oblige.

ALSO, if you STOPPED ASSUMING, then you MIGHT START UNDERSTANDING.

You wrote:

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect. Although I have NEVER advocated ANY so-called "consensus theory", what you are essentially saying here is ANY reasoning AT ALL based on, if there is a 'consensus', then the 'consensus' making truth is just INCORRECT.

However, then you 'try to' use the reasoning that it is BECAUSE OF 'consensus' between "english speakers" that makes the CLEAR DISTINCTION between 'facts' and 'opinions'.

Therefore, this MEANS that you are being CONTRADICTORY, and a HYPOCRITE, if you say and CLAIM, which you do, that 'consensus' does NOT make ANY 'thing' true, BUT it is 'consensus' that makes the DISTINCTION between 'facts' and 'opinions' true.

Do you UNDERSTAND, now?

If NOT, then are you ABLE to EXPLAIN what 'it' is EXACTLY, that you, supposedly, can NOT YET SEE? But, which "other" "english speakers" can VERY CLEARLY SEE, and also UNDERSTAND by the way.

You are confused. Consensus on the use of words - such as 'fact', 'opinion' and 'objectivity' and 'truth' - has nothing to do with a consensus theory of truth. Which is what you do advocate, even if you don't realise it. The idiotic claim that facts are opinions entails it. But, tell you what, I can't be bothered to plough back through your interminable ramblings to find a demonstration.

And if you use any block caps in a post from now on, I won't bother reading it, let alone replying. About which you may not give a toss. Which suits me.

I'm glad another person has decided to call him on that idiotic practice of CaPiTaLiSaTION.

[Skepdick]

I'm glad another person has decided to call him on that idiotic practice of CaPiTaLiSaTION.

I've been calling you out on being an idiot for months...

Not that you pay attention.

[Sculptor]

I'm glad another person has decided to call him on that idiotic practice of CaPiTaLiSaTION.

I've been calling you out on being an idiot for months...

Not that you pay attention.

You are on ignore just like Age.

[Skepdick]

You are on ignore just like Age.

Oh no!

Anyway.

[Peter Holmes]

Question: What makes capital punishment morally wrong?
Answer: I wouldn't want it done to me.
Conclusion: It's a fact, as sure as eggs is eggs, that capital punishment is morally wrong. What I do and don't want done to me is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

QED. Genius.

[Sculptor]

Question: What makes capital punishment morally wrong?
Answer: I wouldn't want it done to me.
Conclusion: It's a fact, as sure as eggs is eggs, that capital punishment is morally wrong. What I do and don't want done to me is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

QED. Genius.

That is just ONE type of morality. There are others.
Kant might insist on do as you would be done by. But there are considerations as to means and ends, and other aspects of utility and considerations concerning exceptionalism, sectional interest - either by race, creed, or species, as well as other intersecting concerns.

[Age]

One of you is confused, for sure. From where I am looking it's definitely you.

If you are appealing to normative semantics/normative use of language then you are necessarily appealing to the consensus theory of truth.

In the absense of consensus...

I can use the term "red" to describe this color.
You can use the term "red" to describe this color.
Age can use the term "red" to describe this color.
Henry can use the term "red" to describe this color.

We have lots of colors, I tell you! And we need to figure out how to agree on which one we actually call "red".

ACCEPTANCE. That is; the one we ACCEPT as 'red', is the one which IS (known as) 'red'.

Blah blah. Empty words.

What, EXACTLY, do you think I am saying and meaning here?

From what you have written below you seem to have completely MISCONSTRUED what I ACTUALLY MEANT. That is; IF we ALL ACCEPT the bottom one as 'red', then that will be the one that is (known as) 'red'.

It would NOT matter 'which one', just as long as we are IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

Which is what I thought you were 'getting at'.

You accept this one as 'red'.
I accept this one as 'red'.

We accept different things.

But I DO ACCEPT the ONE you do here.

That is the WHOLE POINT.

And, WHY would you ASSUME I accepted the first one?

I endeavor to discover what "others" SEE and AGREE WITH, and then I decide what to ACCEPT, and AGREE WITH.

Also, let it be KNOWN that what is 'red' to you might be 'brown', or ANY other color, to "another".

But, if we AGREE on some 'thing', then we can MOVE ALONG.

We will NEVER know if what is 'blue', for example, to one is 'red' to "another". But, we can AGREE on what 'A' color IS.

[Age]

STOP TELLING me WHAT TO DO. Ask politely. AND, then I might oblige.

ALSO, if you STOPPED ASSUMING, then you MIGHT START UNDERSTANDING.

You wrote:

The consensus theory of truth you're advocating is obviously incorrect. Although I have NEVER advocated ANY so-called "consensus theory", what you are essentially saying here is ANY reasoning AT ALL based on, if there is a 'consensus', then the 'consensus' making truth is just INCORRECT.

However, then you 'try to' use the reasoning that it is BECAUSE OF 'consensus' between "english speakers" that makes the CLEAR DISTINCTION between 'facts' and 'opinions'.

Therefore, this MEANS that you are being CONTRADICTORY, and a HYPOCRITE, if you say and CLAIM, which you do, that 'consensus' does NOT make ANY 'thing' true, BUT it is 'consensus' that makes the DISTINCTION between 'facts' and 'opinions' true.

Do you UNDERSTAND, now?

If NOT, then are you ABLE to EXPLAIN what 'it' is EXACTLY, that you, supposedly, can NOT YET SEE? But, which "other" "english speakers" can VERY CLEARLY SEE, and also UNDERSTAND by the way.

You are confused. Consensus on the use of words - such as 'fact', 'opinion' and 'objectivity' and 'truth' - has nothing to do with a consensus theory of truth. Which is what you do advocate, even if you don't realise it. The idiotic claim that facts are opinions entails it. But, tell you what, I can't be bothered to plough back through your interminable ramblings to find a demonstration.

And if you use any block caps in a post from now on, I won't bother reading it, let alone replying. About which you may not give a toss. Which suits me.

I'm glad another person has decided to call him on that idiotic practice of CaPiTaLiSaTION.

But plenty of "others" have "called me out on" capitalizing some words. Is this one REALLY the first 'other' one you have seen?

[Age]

Question: What makes capital punishment morally wrong?
Answer: I wouldn't want it done to me.
Conclusion: It's a fact, as sure as eggs is eggs, that capital punishment is morally wrong. What I do and don't want done to me is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

QED. Genius.

If you say so.

[Peter Holmes]

Question: What makes capital punishment morally wrong?
Answer: I wouldn't want it done to me.
Conclusion: It's a fact, as sure as eggs is eggs, that capital punishment is morally wrong. What I do and don't want done to me is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

QED. Genius.

If you say so.

I don't say so, right? It's a joke. A real thigh-slapper.