Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:02 pm
Either allow "imperative" to be used in both subjective and objective senses, or don't use the word. Simple as that.
Oy vey.
You don't know what "imperative" means. "Imperative" means "necessary," or "obligatory" in some way. In ethics, it means a precept that somebody has a duty or obligation to fulfill.
There's no such thing as something "subjective" that is "imperative." If something is "subjective," it's purely a function of somebody else's temporary feelings or perceptions; and there's no way for anybody to have an "imperative" duty toward that.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:02 pm
Either allow "imperative" to be used in both subjective and objective senses, or don't use the word. Simple as that.
Oy vey.
You don't know what "imperative" means. "Imperative" means "necessary," or "obligatory" in some way. In ethics, it means a precept that somebody has a duty or obligation to fulfill.
There's no such thing as something "subjective" that is "imperative." If something is "subjective," it's purely a function of somebody else's temporary feelings or perceptions; and there's no way for anybody to have an OBJECTIVE "imperative" duty toward that.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:02 pm
Either allow "imperative" to be used in both subjective and objective senses, or don't use the word. Simple as that.
Oy vey.
You don't know what "imperative" means. "Imperative" means "necessary," or "obligatory" in some way. In ethics, it means a precept that somebody has a duty or obligation to fulfill.
There's no such thing as something "subjective" that is "imperative." If something is "subjective," it's purely a function of somebody else's temporary feelings or perceptions; and there's no way for anybody to have an OBJECTIVE "imperative" duty toward that.
Hate to tell you. Sorry.
fixed
Take out the illuminated word, and it changes nothing. It's still true, and it still exposes the fallacy behind moral subjectivism.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:46 pm
Take out the illuminated word, and it changes nothing. It's still true, and it still exposes the fallacy behind moral subjectivism.
You claim to have refuted all subjective moral philosophy, by employing one very transparent and insignificant word sophistry.
...socialization is often the moral problem, not the solution to morality.
Indeed, as a child [or even as an adult] you might be socialized [indoctrinated] by a family or a communitity who preached the "gospel" according to one of these...
And problems pop up all the time when these folks make contact and insist that only their one dogma is the one true path to enlightenment here and now. And, again, for some, the path to immortality and enlightenment there and then.
If you were socialized by Hamas, what is your moral standing? How about if you were socialized into the Nazi Party, or the Red Brigade? How about if your socialization took place in North Korea?
Of course, that's my point!!
And what puzzles me is how all of this unfolds on Judgment Day. What's a God to do when those who come before Him at the Pearly Gates to be judged were born and raised and lived out their entire lives never even having heard of Jesus Christ or Muhammad or the God of Abraham?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:46 pm
Take out the illuminated word, and it changes nothing. It's still true, and it still exposes the fallacy behind moral subjectivism.
You claim to have refuted all subjective moral philosophy, by employing one very transparent and insignificant word sophistry.
You really should go back and read. I've spelled out all the refutations there.
What you're pointing to is a simple absurdity of subjectivist language. That's the least of the refutations of moral subjectivism. There are plenty more.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:46 pm
Take out the illuminated word, and it changes nothing. It's still true, and it still exposes the fallacy behind moral subjectivism.
You claim to have refuted all subjective moral philosophy, by employing one very transparent and insignificant word sophistry.
You really should go back and read. I've spelled out all the refutations there.
What you're pointing to is a simple absurdity of subjectivist language. That's the least of the refutations of moral subjectivism. There are plenty more.
Happy reading.
No, a word sophistry is not a refutation, it's your admission that you have nothing. Which of course subjectivists already knew.
Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 8:54 pm
You claim to have refuted all subjective moral philosophy, by employing one very transparent and insignificant word sophistry.
You really should go back and read. I've spelled out all the refutations there.
What you're pointing to is a simple absurdity of subjectivist language. That's the least of the refutations of moral subjectivism. There are plenty more.
Happy reading.
No, a word sophistry is not a refutation...
Read the rest of the thread. You'll get all the refutations you need.
Or are you afraid to? That would certainly explain why you haven't, so far. Maybe you don't want to know that moral subjectivism is absurd. Okay. You don't have to know.
IC. You talk about the 'fallacy behind moral subjectivism'.
Please can you set out this fallacious subjectivist argument, showing why it's invalid and/or unsound. Of particular interest to me would be the conclusion.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 10:20 am
IC. You talk about the 'fallacy behind moral subjectivism'.
Please can you set out this fallacious subjectivist argument, showing why it's invalid and/or unsound. Of particular interest to me would be the conclusion.
By induction moral subjectivism necesarily erases the possibility of lying or even uttering false statements.
There's no such thing as lying; or a false claim. There's only your version of the truth and my version of the truth.
Your opinion and my opinion.
Your use of language and my use of language.
Different ways to use language.
Different descriptions of one and the same reality.
In your version of the truth this color is red. In my version of the truth this color is blue.
What makes either of the descriptions/claims above "false" if moral subjectivism is true?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 10:20 am
IC. You talk about the 'fallacy behind moral subjectivism'.
Please can you set out this fallacious subjectivist argument, showing why it's invalid and/or unsound. Of particular interest to me would be the conclusion.
Make sure he includes the bit where you aren't allowed to even understand words like good and bad, right and wrong unless you are a moral realist please. I asked him by what argument he established this claim in the past, and with his typical honest candour he told me that he had already done that and it was up to me to go and find where with no further clues.
It's annoying that IC is Canadian, because the best analogy to his arguments is the Canadian Girlfriend who completely does exist, but there's always a reason why nobody has met her and they can't meet her today either.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 10:53 am
Make sure he includes the bit where you aren't allowed to even understand words like good and bad, right and wrong unless you are a moral realist please. I asked him by what argument he established this claim in the past, and with his typical honest candour he told me that he had already done that and it was up to me to go and find where with no further clues.
Because in the moral subjectivist paradigm it's impossible to determine whether your "understanding" is right or wrong.
THere's no difference between "understanding" and "misunderstanding".
There's just your understanding and my understanding. We understand differently.
All positive or negative connotation is stripped away. There are just different ways of doing stuff like thinking, being, speaking - none of them "wrong".
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Claim: If you reject moral objectivism - the existence of moral facts - you don't understand how to use the words good, bad, right and wrong in a moral context.
Well, here are two moral objectivist assertions.
1 It's a fact that homosexuality is morally wrong.
2 It's a fact that homosexuality is not morally wrong.
Now, which of these claimants doesn't understand how to use the expression morally wrong? Or, if they both know how to use the expression morally wrong, which of these claims is true, and which is false?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:24 am
Claim: If you reject moral objectivism - the existence of moral facts - you don't understand how to use the words good, bad, right and wrong in a moral context.
Well, here are two moral objectivist assertions.
1 It's a fact that homosexuality is morally wrong.
2 It's a fact that homosexuality is not morally wrong.
Now, which of these claimants doesn't understand how to use the expression morally wrong? Or, if they both know how to use the expression morally wrong, which of these claims is true, and which is false?
Another triumph of moral objectivist reasoning.
Another strawman by Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes
If you reject moral objectivism you have no grounds for judging the "falsity" of ANY claim.
Which of these claims is "false"?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 10:23 amIn your version of the truth this color is red. In my version of the truth this color is blue.
