What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

By mistake, I posted the following at yet another of VA's OPs. Apologies.

VA's accusation of straw-manning is a projection, derived from Kant's spurious distinction between noumena and phenomena. It's spurious because, if (as Kant says, and VA and I agree) there are no noumena, then there are also no phenomena. In other words, if there are no things-in-themselves, there can be no appearances of things-in-themselves.

Kant's noumenon is a ghost or bogeyman that has haunted philosophy down to this day - as VA's invalid argument demonstrates. I have no idea what a thing-in-itself could possibly be, so I certainly don't claim that such a thing exists. Yet VA claims that to say that what we call reality - of which we're a part - consists of facts which have nothing to do with knowledge or description is, necessarily, to say that there are noumena. And that is to straw man my argument.

The other straw man is that I must, necessarily, subscribe to a correspondence or truth maker/bearer theory of truth - which, like Rorty, I definitely don't. I reject all philosophical foundationalisms as demonstrably incorrect.

Sadly, all of this is beyond VA's comprehension, which is why we get a seemingly endless repetition of the nonsense.

[Peter Holmes]

Questions for VA.

Do you think there was no [universe / existence / reality / nature] before the evolution of human beings, and that there won't be when we're gone?

If so, do you have scientific, empirical evidence for that claim?

Never mind the bollocks about emergence, entanglement and intersubjective consensus opinion. Answer those damn questions.

[Skepdick]

Kant's noumenon is a ghost or bogeyman that has haunted philosophy down to this day

Kant's idiocy is haunting you, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes, to this very day!

noumenon noun a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.

A noumenon is precisely what you are talking about when you talk about "the universe as it was, is and will be"

[Harbal]

Kant's idiocy is haunting you, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes, to this very day!

I wonder what Peter Holmes did to you to earn such extreme hostility.

[Peter Holmes]

Kant's idiocy is haunting you, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes, to this very day!

I wonder what Peter Holmes did to you to earn such extreme hostility.

The penis is an unpleasant, intellectually challenged and self-confessed troll that doesn't like its inadequacy being exposed, its claims falsified, and its 'arguments' demolished. Hence the abuse.

[Skepdick]

Kant's idiocy is haunting you, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes, to this very day!

I wonder what Peter Holmes did to you to earn such extreme hostility.

What do you mean? There's nothing objectively wrong with the way I am treating Peter Holmes.

Ask him - he agrees with me.

If I am doing something objectively wrong I am sure he'll let me know.

[Harbal]

The penis is an unpleasant, intellectually challenged and self-confessed troll that doesn't like its inadequacy being exposed, its claims falsified, and its 'arguments' demolished. Hence the abuse.

I thought you must have killed his dog, or stolen his wife, to deserve that much animosity.

[Skepdick]

The penis is an unpleasant, intellectually challenged and self-confessed troll that doesn't like its inadequacy being exposed, its claims falsified, and its 'arguments' demolished. Hence the abuse.

I thought you must have killed his dog, or stolen his wife, to deserve that much animosity.

This is so peculiar!

Are you saying that I am doing something objectively wrong to Peter Holmes even though Peter Holmes himself says otherwise?

[Harbal]

What do you mean? There's nothing objectively wrong with the way I am treating Peter Holmes.

I doubt that Peter Holmes' attitude towards the matter is as objective as yours.

[Skepdick]

What do you mean? There's nothing objectively wrong with the way I am treating Peter Holmes.

I doubt that Peter Holmes' attitude towards the matter is as objective as yours.

Maybe that's the problem?

But it doesn't seem like it's my problem.

[Harbal]

Are you saying that I am doing something objectively wrong to Peter Holmes even though Peter Holmes himself says otherwise?

I was curious about the reason for it, not the rightness or wrongness of it.

[Skepdick]

Are you saying that I am doing something objectively wrong to Peter Holmes even though Peter Holmes himself says otherwise?

I was curious about the reason for it, not the rightness or wrongness of it.

Who says there needs to be a reason?

Peter Holmes claims there is no objective right and wrong, so anything goes.

This is anything.

[Harbal]

Are you saying that I am doing something objectively wrong to Peter Holmes even though Peter Holmes himself says otherwise?

I was curious about the reason for it, not the rightness or wrongness of it.

Who says there needs to be a reason?

I was asking on the off chance that there might be a reason, but I don't insist there has to be one.

If there's no objective right and wrong then anything goes.

Only if you don't have a subjective sense of right and wrong.

[Peter Holmes]

Dick-for-Brains Reasoning at its Spectacular Best.

1 It's objectively morally wrong to murder someone.

2 It's not objectively morally wrong to murder someone who denies moral objectivity.

[Skepdick]

Dick-for-Brains Reasoning at its Spectacular Best.

1 It's objectively morally wrong to murder someone.

2 It's not objectively morally wrong to murder someone who denies moral objectivity.

What a dumb cunt! Why is this basic reasoning confusing you?

It is objectively wrong in my philosophy.
It's not objectively wrong in your philosophy.

In a society which subscribes to my philosophy murdering you is objectively wrong.
In a society which subscribes to your philosophy murdering you is not objectively wrong.

This is a philosophy forum - philosophy is about role-playing. A game of pretend.

I am pretending that we live in your society and you think "my" reasoning is idiotic.

Of course it's idiotic. It's your thread; your society; and your reasoning that I am emulating.