Is morality objective or subjective?

[Age]

I don't understand what you are saying, Age.

Can you clarify?

If you EXPLAINED what, EXACTLY, you do NOT 'understand' here, and ASKED specific CLARIFYING QUESTIONS regarding what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which you SEEK to be CLARIFIED and would like CLARIFIED here, then 'this' would help, TREMENDOUSLY, 'the readers' GAIN A MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING here "themselves".

Now, how much SIMPLER and EASIER could I ASK 'you', so that you COULD UNDERSTAND, BETTER;

1. 'What IS 'the thing', EXACTLY, which you want to give a name to?'

2. What IS 'it', EXACTLY, which you want to call a name?

3. How do 'you', personally, DEFINE the word 'philosopher'? (Surely 'this' is REALLY NOT 'that hard' for even 'you' TO UNDERSTAND "skepdick", right?)

4. 'you' CLAIM that some people KEEP TELLING 'you', 'that is how truth is supposed to work'. So, what does the 'that' REFER TO, EXACTLY?

By the way, I was ONLY JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. I was NOT REALLY SAYING ANY 'thing' OTHER than 'that', 'that' being, JUST ASKING 'you' TO CLARIFY 'your' POSITION and VIEWS.

In the most EXACT TERMS POSSIBLE.

I don't understand anything you are saying. Your questions make no sense, Age.

Can you clarify please?

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN one is 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT AWAY from 'its' OBVIOUS INABILITY TO JUST COMMUNICATE and CLARIFY 'its' OWN POSITION.

And this IS BECAUSE 'its' OWN POSITION IS NOT EVEN ABLE TO CLARIFIED, BECAUSE 'THAT POSITION' IS JUST TO ABSURD and RIDICULOUS. As can be CLEARLY SEEN above here.

[Skepdick]

If you EXPLAINED what, EXACTLY, you do NOT 'understand' here, and ASKED specific CLARIFYING QUESTIONS regarding what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which you SEEK to be CLARIFIED and would like CLARIFIED here, then 'this' would help, TREMENDOUSLY, 'the readers' GAIN A MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING here "themselves".

Now, how much SIMPLER and EASIER could I ASK 'you', so that you COULD UNDERSTAND, BETTER;

1. 'What IS 'the thing', EXACTLY, which you want to give a name to?'

2. What IS 'it', EXACTLY, which you want to call a name?

3. How do 'you', personally, DEFINE the word 'philosopher'? (Surely 'this' is REALLY NOT 'that hard' for even 'you' TO UNDERSTAND "skepdick", right?)

4. 'you' CLAIM that some people KEEP TELLING 'you', 'that is how truth is supposed to work'. So, what does the 'that' REFER TO, EXACTLY?

By the way, I was ONLY JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. I was NOT REALLY SAYING ANY 'thing' OTHER than 'that', 'that' being, JUST ASKING 'you' TO CLARIFY 'your' POSITION and VIEWS.

In the most EXACT TERMS POSSIBLE.

I don't understand anything you are saying. Your questions make no sense, Age.

Can you clarify please?

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN is 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT AWAY from 'its' OBVIOUS INABILITY TO JUST COMMUNICATE and CLARIFY 'its' OWN POSITION.

And this IS BECAUSE 'its' OWN POSITION IS NOT EVEN ABLE TO CLARIFIED, BECAUSE 'it' IS JUST TO ABSURD and RIDICULOUS. As can be CLEARLY SEEN above here.

Age, stop deflecting away from your inability to clarify your own questions.

There's nothing worse than bad questions in any discourse.

[Will Bouwman]

I don't think take nobody's word for it is the motto of the Royal Society.

It really is:

"The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment."
https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

[Age]

In the most EXACT TERMS POSSIBLE.

I don't understand anything you are saying. Your questions make no sense, Age.

Can you clarify please?

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN is 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT AWAY from 'its' OBVIOUS INABILITY TO JUST COMMUNICATE and CLARIFY 'its' OWN POSITION.

And this IS BECAUSE 'its' OWN POSITION IS NOT EVEN ABLE TO CLARIFIED, BECAUSE 'it' IS JUST TO ABSURD and RIDICULOUS. As can be CLEARLY SEEN above here.

Age, stop deflecting away from your inability to clarify your own questions.

There's nothing worse than bad questions in any discourse.

ANOTHER one who is VERY condescending AND evasive.

'you' are the one who made the OBVIOUSLY False CLAIM that, 'Philosophers keep telling you that's how truth is supposed to work', BUT 'you' do NOT even know what the 'that' word IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. Although it was 'you' WHO WROTE 'it'.

[Will Bouwman]

I take nobody's word for it.

That's why I want to find out what it is all by myself.
And then I'll call it what it is, and I won't call it what it isn't.

Good luck with that. Let us know how you get on.

OK...reporting in.

Turns out you were only paying lip service to "Nullus in verba".

That's what you do with rules. Rules are tools dontcha know? If it doesn't fit the nut you are trying to turn, get another one.
Anyway, what's so special about you that when you "find out what it is all by myself", that will be definitive? How are you getting on with finding out what this colour is?

[Skepdick]

That's what you do with rules. Rules are tools dontcha know? If it doesn't fit the nut you are trying to turn, get another one.
Anyway, what's so special about you that when you "find out what it is all by myself", that will be definitive? How are you getting on with finding out what this colour is?

I have no idea what being special would amount to. I'm just practicing "Nullius in verba".

I've figured out exactly what color it is. To be absolutely precise and to avoid the silliness of languageges and conrespondences - it's this eaxct color

[Will Bouwman]

That's what you do with rules. Rules are tools dontcha know? If it doesn't fit the nut you are trying to turn, get another one.
Anyway, what's so special about you that when you "find out what it is all by myself", that will be definitive? How are you getting on with finding out what this colour is?

I have no idea what being special would amount to. I'm just practicing "Nullius in verba".

I've figured out exactly what color it is. To be absolutely precise and to avoid the silliness of languageges and conrespondences - it's this eaxct color

Aren't you the research wizard! Any objections to the rest of us calling this eaxct color red? Just as a tool; we'll change it if you come up with something better.

[Skepdick]

That's what you do with rules. Rules are tools dontcha know? If it doesn't fit the nut you are trying to turn, get another one.
Anyway, what's so special about you that when you "find out what it is all by myself", that will be definitive? How are you getting on with finding out what this colour is?

I have no idea what being special would amount to. I'm just practicing "Nullius in verba".

I've figured out exactly what color it is. To be absolutely precise and to avoid the silliness of languageges and conrespondences - it's this eaxct color

Aren't you the research wizard! Any objections to the rest of us calling this eaxct color red? Just as a tool; we'll change it if you come up with something better.

It's like we are going in circles...

What do you call "better"?

[henry quirk]

But I've never met a Determinist who could live or even talk as if his alleged Determinism were really true.

But that isn't his fault; he has no choice but to act that way.

Quite so.

You'd think, if necessitarianism were true, that occasionally one would actually live as one. That is: if necessitarianism is true, and some of us are compelled to believe we're free wills and to live as though we were free wills, then some of us would be compelled not only to believe in necessitarianism but would also be compelled to live as necessitarians. None do. All necessitarians live as free wills. They talk and argue as free wills. They make choices as free wills. They reason as free wills. Not a one acts like a conduit for impersonal forces or acts like a domino or acts like a link in a causal chain.

[henry quirk]

Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.

But we Theists are not advocates of non-moral premises. We are not sharing your assumption that facts lack moral significance, and can be what has been called "bare facts," or what Hume thought were underlying the fact-value dichotomy. Rather, Theists believe that facts do have moral significance, for they all fit in somewhere, relative to God, His nature and His purposes in the Creation.

[Will Bouwman]

I have no idea what being special would amount to. I'm just practicing "Nullius in verba".

I've figured out exactly what color it is. To be absolutely precise and to avoid the silliness of languageges and conrespondences - it's this eaxct color

Aren't you the research wizard! Any objections to the rest of us calling this eaxct color red? Just as a tool; we'll change it if you come up with something better.

It's like we are going in circles...

What do you call "better"?

Well, calling this eaxct color red works every time I use it. If you have encountered circumstances in which calling this eaxct color something other than red, but which also would be appropriate for all the times you called this eaxct color red, then whatever you called this eaxct color other than red, is better than calling it red in numbers of applications. You can call that something other than better, if you so wish. On the other hand, you could tell me why that isn't better. I mean, are Einstein's field equations better than Newton's law? In my book they're just tools.

[Skepdick]

Aren't you the research wizard! Any objections to the rest of us calling this eaxct color red? Just as a tool; we'll change it if you come up with something better.

It's like we are going in circles...

What do you call "better"?

Well, calling this eaxct color red works every time I use it. If you have encountered circumstances in which calling this eaxct color something other than red, but which also would be appropriate for all the times you called this eaxct color red, then whatever you called this eaxct color other than red, is better than calling it red in numbers of applications. You can call that something other than better, if you so wish. On the other hand, you could tell me why that isn't better. I mean, are Einstein's field equations better than Newton's law? In my book they're just tools.

How would I know if calling it anything else works "better"?

[Will Bouwman]

How would I know if calling it anything else works "better"?

Well doesn't it just go to show that all knowledge is theory laden and all language is context dependent. Pretty much as Socrates laid out all those years ago.

[Skepdick]

How would I know if calling it anything else works "better"?

Well doesn't it just go to show that all knowledge is theory laden and all language is context dependent. Pretty much as Socrates laid out all those years ago.

It doesn't show anything... It most certainly doesn't show betterness.

[Will Bouwman]

How would I know if calling it anything else works "better"?

Well doesn't it just go to show that all knowledge is theory laden and all language is context dependent. Pretty much as Socrates laid out all those years ago.

It doesn't show anything... It most certainly doesn't show betterness.

Duh! That's because 'betterness' is context dependent.