Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

You are beyond pathetic...

It's a very reasonable question.

What's "reasonable" about suggesting that someone objecting to slavery has no basis to object to it? Have you lost your marbles? Do you honestly believe that objecting to slavery is not a worthy objection?

By the way, does the Bible condemn slavery? Is there a commandment that says, "thou shalt not create slaves of others"? If not, then how can you even say that slavery can only be evil if there's a God?

[Harbal]

That's a great description of "mob rule." It just means that the laws are determined not by right, but by force, and by the force of whoever holds the majority in raw numbers: their reasons, unimportant; their justifications, not asked for; their arguments, not regarded.

Yikes.

Really? It's more a description of secular democracy, I would say.

In democracy, a person is elected, and held morally accountable for a limited term, and he has to make moral decisions. You're talking about the actual moral decisions not being made by a morally-accountable delegate, but being simply determined by who has the most force of numbers.

I am thinking of law that reflects the moral attitudes of the people it serves. And laws are changed, or modified, over time as social attitudes change. There was a referendum in Ireland not too long ago that resulted in a change to their abortion law. And that, I think, is a good example, because it represented the breaking away from the shackles of dogmatic religious morality.

So where is all this mob rule we should be seeing?

Why would you expect to "be seeing" it, since most people are, even just by instinct, moral objectivists?

That is probably true, and even those of us who have thought about it enough to realise there is no such thing as objective moral truth still tend to behave as though there were. I think I have said this before.

Yes, morality describes to us the way the world OUGHT TO work according to some particular point of view. Which would be God's point of view in your case, but not everyone has a God, or your particular God.

Well, like morality, the existence of God isn't a question that is answered by numbers of people who think it's so. And it's a good thing for the Atheists that it isn't: see above.

I don't get your point.

Morality just is an aspect of sociology, I didn't make it so.

Morality is quite different from sociology. Morality is, as moral philosophers are fond of saying, "prescriptive," whereas sociology is merely "descriptive." That is, morality tells us what should be, and sociology only tells us what is.

Isn't sociology the study of social behaviour? Well morality is just a phenomenon that plays a part in influencing social behaviour.

What's to stop somebody believing that cutting babies' throats is objectively good?

Absolutely nothing, under subjectivism. But under objectivism, it will be evil whether they are willing to recognize that or not. Equally importantly, under objective morality, we can have objective grounds for stopping them, arresting them, prosecuting them, incarcerating them, and so on, as the case may morally require; under subjectivism, no such justifications at all.

Subjectivism makes justice impossible, in fact. There are no standards left by which justice can be enacted.

Let's be clear here. In your scheme of things, objective means what God says. Well our laws are no longer formulated around what God says, to which I ironically say, thank God. We would still be arresting people for homosexuality if God had his way, and I am sure you would say that proves your point, but I don't think you would find much sympathy with that view. I daresay that some of our laws do contain elements that are a throwback to more religious times, but I would like to think those elements are gradually being weeded out. People might still swear on the Bible in court, but they won't get far if they try to reference it regarding points of law.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Then you haven't read the books.

Use your common sense.
That is the minimal for every book I stored.
Where did I state explicitly those are the only sections I read for every book.

Note I edited to include this in my previous post.

• Even Henry Allison with more than 40 years as a Professor specializing in Kant admitted openly his missed out a critical point in the Critique of Pure Reason.
  In the Preface of his book; Transcendental Idealism: Interpretation and Defence, Allison wrote;
  • I was awakened from my “dogmatic slumber" on this issue, however, by the work of a former student, Michelle Grier.
    First in her Dissertation and then, more substantively, in an important book based upon it, Grier has shown conclusively that for Kant Transcendental illusion is inherent in the very nature of human reason.3
  If Allison a pro-Kantian could missed out such a critical point, what more with Blackburn an anti-Kantian[?] with superficial knowledge of Kantian philosophy.

You haven't read Blackburn, but you baselessly assert that you know more about Kant and Hume than he. I don't think you've read Hume. Have you read Allison? Have you read other Kant scholars such as Berlin? Are you well read even on your specialist topic of Kant?

It's all a bit pointless to ask really. You don't read very well. You proved that beyond all possible doubt when you fooled yourself that a professional philosopher wrote a paper that was picked up by a professional editor and published by an academic publisher with the absurd argument that people who disagree with moral realism have a cognitive deficit. It goes almost without saying of course that none of those persons committed the career suicide you ascribe to them.

That is the only book I can say for sure that you ever did try to read though. I've never seen you comment much about other books other than to describe chapter titles.

At present I have around 4100 files [books, articles, notes] in my Kant Folder.
I spent 3 years full time directly on the Kant CPR so what others wrote about Kant is informative but they are secondary.
There are loads of of reputable Kantian philosophers and there are hundreds of other Kantian philosophers.
I have not read Berlin [Isaiah]'s book on Kant, if he is really significant I would have detect him within my Kantian radar.
Since you mentioned I will take a look.

I don't give a damn with your doubts whether I have read whatever books or not.

Based on whatever I have read of 'Ruling Passion' especially Chapter 7 & 8 I am confident Blackburn have not grasp and understood Kant 'FULLY' of the highest precision. You have nothing to claim otherwise.

[Immanuel Can]

You are beyond pathetic...

It's a very reasonable question.

What's "reasonable" about suggesting that someone objecting to slavery has no basis to object to it?

Gary, anybody who was an enslaver of others would ask exactly the same question: and if you have no answer to it, you have no defense against them saying, "Well, that's just your subjective opinion." And you would have to say, "Yes, that's all it ever is."

If you want to be that defenseless, you certainly can be. I'm unwilling to be that, and am very interested in us all having the best justifications for saying -- and believing -- that slavery is wrong.

[Age]

It's a very reasonable question.

What's "reasonable" about suggesting that someone objecting to slavery has no basis to object to it?

Gary, anybody who was an enslaver of others would ask exactly the same question: and if you have no answer to it, you have no defense against them saying, "Well, that's just your subjective opinion." And you would have to say, "Yes, that's all it ever is."

If you want to be that defenseless, you certainly can be. I'm unwilling to be that, and am very interested in us all having the best justifications for saying -- and believing -- that slavery is wrong.

What is 'your' best justification for saying, and believing, that slavery is wrong "immanuel can"?

Or, do 'you' NOT say, and believe, that slavery is wrong?

[Atla]

Bible verses about slavery

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical ... t-slavery/

For example

1 Peter 2:18
18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Exodus 21:7
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

[Age]

Use your common sense.
That is the minimal for every book I stored.
Where did I state explicitly those are the only sections I read for every book.

Note I edited to include this in my previous post.

• Even Henry Allison with more than 40 years as a Professor specializing in Kant admitted openly his missed out a critical point in the Critique of Pure Reason.
  In the Preface of his book; Transcendental Idealism: Interpretation and Defence, Allison wrote;
  • I was awakened from my “dogmatic slumber" on this issue, however, by the work of a former student, Michelle Grier.
    First in her Dissertation and then, more substantively, in an important book based upon it, Grier has shown conclusively that for Kant Transcendental illusion is inherent in the very nature of human reason.3
  If Allison a pro-Kantian could missed out such a critical point, what more with Blackburn an anti-Kantian[?] with superficial knowledge of Kantian philosophy.

You haven't read Blackburn, but you baselessly assert that you know more about Kant and Hume than he. I don't think you've read Hume. Have you read Allison? Have you read other Kant scholars such as Berlin? Are you well read even on your specialist topic of Kant?

It's all a bit pointless to ask really. You don't read very well. You proved that beyond all possible doubt when you fooled yourself that a professional philosopher wrote a paper that was picked up by a professional editor and published by an academic publisher with the absurd argument that people who disagree with moral realism have a cognitive deficit. It goes almost without saying of course that none of those persons committed the career suicide you ascribe to them.

That is the only book I can say for sure that you ever did try to read though. I've never seen you comment much about other books other than to describe chapter titles.

At present I have around 4100 files [books, articles, notes] in my Kant Folder.
I spent 3 years full time directly on the Kant CPR so what others wrote about Kant is informative but they are secondary.
There are loads of of reputable Kantian philosophers and there are hundreds of other Kantian philosophers.
I have not read Berlin [Isaiah]'s book on Kant, if he is really significant I would have detect him within my Kantian radar.
Since you mentioned I will take a look.

I don't give a damn with your doubts whether I have read whatever books or not.

Based on whatever I have read of 'Ruling Passion' especially Chapter 7 & 8 I am confident Blackburn have not grasp and understood Kant 'FULLY' of the highest precision. You have nothing to claim otherwise.

BUT, and just as OBVIOUS, is the Fact that NONE of 'you', including the self-proclaimed expert, here, also known as "veritas aequitas", have NOT grasped and understood "immanuel kant", FULLY, and NEVER WILL, and especially considering now that 'you' ALL have left it TO LATE to SEEK OUT, OBTAIN, and GAIN ACTUAL FULL CLARIFICATION FROM 'that one'.

[Immanuel Can]

Really? It's more a description of secular democracy, I would say.

In democracy, a person is elected, and held morally accountable for a limited term, and he has to make moral decisions. You're talking about the actual moral decisions not being made by a morally-accountable delegate, but being simply determined by who has the most force of numbers.

I am thinking of law that reflects the moral attitudes of the people it serves.

In Gaza, women can be beaten at will, so long as the stick isn't thicker than a man's finger, children can be forced into marriage, and homosexuals can be thrown from a rooftop. These are lawful things, according to that society. It "reflects the moral attitudes of the people it serves."

Not good enough. Many societies advocate things against which you would be rightly set.

So where is all this mob rule we should be seeing?

Why would you expect to "be seeing" it, since most people are, even just by instinct, moral objectivists?

That is probably true, and even those of us who have thought about it enough to realise there is no such thing as objective moral truth still tend to behave as though there were. I think I have said this before.

See that? You've just answered your own question: "even those of us who have thought about it enough to realise there is no such thing as objective moral truth still tend to behave as though there were." You don't see this mob rule, because the residual effects on people's consciences from years of following morality as if objective has trained them into such behaviour.

The problem, though is what happens when they actually start to believe that morality is subjective, and that realization penetrates far enough that it begins to erode their old convictions and become reflected in their actual behaviour. Then they discover they had no reason to believe those old prohibitions and values in the first place, and sequentially their good behavior begins to decay into chaotic and destructive behavior. Watch for it. It's coming. Already, we see it happening, if your eyes are really open. You may see allowing baby murder as progress; and you will possibly see killing the elderly the same way, and every form of sexual deviance, and then things like mob rule, media propagandization, and dictatorship.

For those with open eyes, we can already see how far down that road we are. But there's much farther coming; and unless society rediscovers that some things are just objectively right, and some are objectively wrong, and comes back to at least some rough moral consensus and agreement about basic human rights, you're going to see some things you never believed society would ever do.

Yes, morality describes to us the way the world OUGHT TO work according to some particular point of view. Which would be God's point of view in your case, but not everyone has a God, or your particular God.

Well, like morality, the existence of God isn't a question that is answered by numbers of people who think it's so. And it's a good thing for the Atheists that it isn't: see above.

I don't get your point.

On a world scale, most people are some sort of Theist. 94% believe a god or God of some kind is at least a possible hypothesis. Only 4% pretend to certainty that God doesn't exist...most living in the spoiled West. So if you're taking the number of people who believe a thing to indicate anything about truth or falsehood, then Atheism would be up against the wall.

Morality just is an aspect of sociology, I didn't make it so.

Morality is quite different from sociology. Morality is, as moral philosophers are fond of saying, "prescriptive," whereas sociology is merely "descriptive." That is, morality tells us what should be, and sociology only tells us what is.

Isn't sociology the study of social behaviour? Well morality is just a phenomenon that plays a part in influencing social behaviour.

That's your assumption: that "morality" is merely a sociological phenomenon. It's not mine. In fact, it's the point we're debating, as you can see.

What's to stop somebody believing that cutting babies' throats is objectively good?

Absolutely nothing, under subjectivism. But under objectivism, it will be evil whether they are willing to recognize that or not. Equally importantly, under objective morality, we can have objective grounds for stopping them, arresting them, prosecuting them, incarcerating them, and so on, as the case may morally require; under subjectivism, no such justifications at all.

Subjectivism makes justice impossible, in fact. There are no standards left by which justice can be enacted.

Let's be clear here.

Well, instead of ignoring the point and just jumping to what you think I ought to be saying, how about you deal with what I just said? Where are the standards upon which subjectivism can draw to ground a society where justice can be enacted?

I daresay that some of our laws do contain elements that are a throwback to more religious times, but I would like to think those elements are gradually being weeded out.

Well, just for fun, and as an heuristic exercise, let's suppose that were true; and let's even suppose, for argument's sake, that it would be a good thing. What principles would we refer to, in order to know which of the old laws needed to be "weeded out," and which ones would be immoral to "weed out"?

If there are no such principles, how do you know you are watching the law make some kind of moral progress, versus watching morality slide into the ditch?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Never mind. Here's the expansion, which I think is valid.

So I would fix it this way:

P1 When God knows that something is morally right or wrong, it is.
P2 God knows that X is morally right (or, if you prefer, wrong).
C Therefore, it is morally right (or wrong).

But that's just too darn easy to do, so I can only think we're missing your question somehow...Would you like to revise it somehow?

Your above trounced PH's argument.
I agree your syllogism is valid and objective within the human-based theological-FSK.

But since your P1 is not sound,
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

the degree of objectivity of your whole theological-FSK has negligible degrees of objectivity, i.e. my first estimation as 0.001% in contrast to the credibility and objectivity taken as the Standard at 100%.

[Iwannaplato]

Over and again, I have noted that objectivists exist at both ends of the moral and political divide...liberal and conservative. And all up and down the ideological spectrum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

Which I acknowledge a few times in that post.

I just happened to have derived my own particular prejudices given the life I lived as a left-wing political activist. Nearly 25 years.

Can we really relegate that to the past? (noting the past tense in the description)

But again if objectivism is a problem and a kind of fanaticism, then clearly indicating that there are objectivisms on all sides and not switching between posts that are like leftist/liberal objectivist post and posts decrying any form of objectivism would be clearer.

But I would certainly not argue today that moral nihilism reflects the most rational ethical assessment.

Well, that wouldn't make any sense. It would contradict itself as a position. So, I can understand why most moral nihilists wouldn't argue that.

Instead, I am far more intrigued with those here who espouse a No God frame of mind but still manage to embrace one of another objective morality themselves. How, given a particular set of circumstances, are they not "fractured and fragmented" in turn?

Thus...

I do know that you do this sometimes. That you point out that people on 'your side' are also objectivists. But that's what I was responding to here. It seemed like, in that previous post, the objectivists were on one team. Again, I know that is not your overriding position, however if you have any tendency to focus on the objectivists with positions you like less while leaving out the objectivists whose positions fit with your preferences, then you are undermining your point.

Does that work for you in, what, exposing me? Fine.

I was pointing out what I think undermines your message elsewhere with posts like that. Perhaps you agree, perhaps you disagree. I don't think of it as exposing. I suggested that if the point is what you said it was, it could be undermined by posting, on occasion, just like a member of one of the various objectivist teams.

You have your grasp of me and I have mine.

I don't think I posted anything that indicates a grasp of you. I pointed out what your posts were like. I acknowledged that you do post mentioned all objectivisms and your skepticisms about them. I pointed out that sometimes your posts are coming from what could be called one of the teams. I suggested this went against you making your the point that you told me was your point.

So, far you haven't responsed to that idea. And you are calling it me grasping you and exposing you.

Now, again, given an issue like abortion or capitalism or animal rights or gun control...how close do you come to believing that morality here is objective?

Not close at all.

For example, I was an objectivist for years myself. And even when I abandoned one [Christianity] for another [Unitarianism] for another [Marxism] for another [Democratic Socialism] I was still able to convince myself that morality itself could be grasped objectively...God or No God.

Well, you're certainly focusing on yourself. I was more interested in the point I made about...well, I said it above and in the post before.

Yes, I am pretty sure you have mentioned this...let's say more than a hundred times.

Hey, you responded to my post here, Chuck.

Sure. But instead of responding to the point I made you wrote something you have mentioend...more than a hundred times...and not direclty connected.

No, really, if my repetitive points irk you then by all means, move on to others.

Generally I have.

Just as I've moved on from you here because from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind you are basically just one more "serious philosopher": ever and always exchanging definitions and deductions up in the intellectual clouds. Even in regard to conflicting value judgments.

Now this is making me the issue. I did not do that in my previous posts. I made a suggestion about how posting the way you did undermined the point you said you had.

What's crucial here, in my view, is that, if and when scientists and/or philosophers are able to take points I raise in the OPs here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

...into account, can they come up with a moral narrative and a political agenda that really does reflect the most rational and virtuous of human interactions?

IOW can they come up with the right objectivist position?

What on Earth is that given all of the One True Paths there are to choose from:

That's why I asked the question.

And my point still revolves less around what one's moral system is and more around how one comes to acquire it given the historical, cultural and interpersonal parameters of their uniquely individual lives. Given that human interactions have managed [so far] to produce quite a few One True Paths:

Then it seems to me it is much clearer if in any discussion of a specific moral issue, here whether homosexuality is bad or not, you should point out that objectivist positions can be on any side of an issue. If we look at the post I responded to it doesn't seem to reflect your point, but rather seems like a weighing in on the morality of homosexuality: those bad conservatives who have mean objectivist positions on homosexuals. I know you did not say this, but again if you just present one side's objectivism and seem critical of that and do not mention the positions that are objectivist but which you are more aligned with, it doesn't aid your point. The point you mention here.

Again and again and again...

Based on my own rooted existentially in dasein personal experiences and the political prejudices I have come to accept over the years, "I" think what I do about, say, same sex marriages. I support them. But that doesn't make them objectively moral. There are, after all, intelligent men and women who are able to offer arguments both for and against it: https://www.google.com/search?q=arguemn ... s-wiz-serp

Yes, I made it clear that I understood that. I mentioned, more than once, precisely so we needn't go over this ground that you do state this and that it is your position.

My point was about whether posting as you often do ALSO, might undermine the point you are making.

Yes, and why is that? How is that not the embodiment of daseins living vast and varied lives interacting in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change? Historically, culturally, socially, politically and economically.

Precisely, so if your point as you say above it to reveal these kinds of things and how they lead to all objectivisms, pointing out one side's objectivisms is misleading. It's not a great way to make your point. It comes off as using your ideas of objectivism to hit the people who have positions you don't like, while remaining silent on the ones you do like. And again, I know that you do call out the objectivism of positions you are sympathetic with. But here you did not and this is not rare.

Precisely from your frame of mind...not even close to it from mine.

OK, so you don't see that the post I responded to, for example, just pointed out the objectivisms that you are less sympathetic with.

And since everything gets interpreted as 'revealing one's team', let me make it clear that I don't think homosexuality is morally wrong. Just pointing out that objectivism is held by pretty much anyone near a mike or computer these days on any side of these issues. The ones you like AND the ones you don't like.

Again, it's not what you think that fascinates me nearly as much as how existentially [re dasein] you came to think this instead of that.

I'm pretty clear on what you want to know and point out. And of course I have my own desires and goals.

Sure, argue that what you think is clear about me is more reasonable than what I think is clear myself. Only with me, my own "clarity" in and of itself is no less just another subjective manifestation of dasein.

Again, if you read the posts, I focus on the posts. I acknowledged what your position is, which you have reiterated here. I accepted and already knew what your position was, but pointed out how it might be undermined by posts like the one on the objectivisms of those against homosexuality. You keep framing it as me have an incorrect take on you, while it was a take on some of your posts in relation to what I thought (correctly, given what you write here) was your point.

Why, say, a liberal prejudice rather than a conservative prejudice? And since there are many, many others who think many, many very different things about human sexuality, what's a philosopher or an ethicist or a political scientist to do?

I think that's an odd way to word this. But then you seem to be a subjectivist looking for a way to finally find an objectivist position that can be demonstrated to be the right one.

Not only that, but an objectivist truth I can embrace that will also result in immortality and salvation.

Great, OK, then I wasn't incorrect.

Look, if IC or any other religionist here is able to convince me that their God does in fact exist and that their God judges homosexuality to be a sin, then, well, what can I say, it's a sin. I'll be against it. At least if the alternative really is oblivion or eternal damnation.

I'm crankier than that. I wouldn't accept it even from God. I'm not sure why I have to assume that a deity is a good one or never confused or doesn't need to develop. For example, I think Abraham messed up being ready to kill his son. And I would hope any deity was disappointed with his robotic response to God's demand. But if God wasn't disappointed, I'm still not stabbing my son to death on command. I find it odd that people think that if God tells them to do something, they are relieved of any responsibility. How is that not like following the orders of an earthly dictator, like a Hitler, say. I mean there you are thinking it's horrible to do X, but you do it because an entity tells you, however powerful. But that's all tangential.

IOW you could be a subjectivist who isn't looking for what a philosopher (some abstract generalized figure or all philosophers political scientists, etc). need to do to find this.

No, I'll always be looking for objective morality if it does in fact exist.

Yes I got that. Clearly stated, great. Though you won't know if it exists until you find it. So, as it reads that conditional sentence implies that the fact of its existence leads to your always being in search of it. Which is an interested idea ontologically. I am guessing you meant by the if clause that you're not saying it does exist. But I thought the interesting ontological is worth pointing out, even if it was an accident of grammar.

Arguments can be made pro and con in regard to homosexuality: https://www.firstthings.com/article/199 ... osexuality

Did you really think I didn't know this? That arguments could be made pro and con in regard to homosexuality? I mean, even just knowing I've been reading parts of this thread. Even having read my previous post it should be clear, given I talked about it, that there were objectivist position on various sides of the issue.

Come on, my arguments are aimed at the objectivists among us.

Oh, like other people reading posts that are directed at me.
OK, that would have been good to know long ago. I always assuming things said to me were responses to what I wrote at least also.

From either end of the moral and political spectrum. With you it's always in regard to my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind in the is/oughtworld. How are you not drawn and quartered yourself in regard to homosexuality. How are your own value judgments here not a manifestation of dasein?

And just to be clear the focus is on me again. Not my posts but me. That said I don't know why I am not drawn and quartered. It's hard to know what one is not experiencing what another person assumes one must experience, when I don't have that assumption, nor obviously the experience I lack (of feeling drawn and quartered). I certain have felt torn in many situations, where things I value would lead me to opposed decisions and I can only make one decision or already have. But that's not what you are focused on.

Okay, Mr. Moral Objectivist, sift through them all and come up with the optimal frame of mind.

What?! Man you make weird assumptions.

Huh? Conflicting arguments are made [morally, politically, philosophically, scientifically, etc.] and any number of objectivists assume that in fact there is an optimal frame of mind. There must be. Why? Because they've found it.

Sure, that wasn't the assumption or set of assumptions I was reacting to. But anyway, I understand better that your posts in response to me (and others) are aimed generally. IOW you write things for other readers, for objectivists, for example, even though that writing isn't really a response to what I and others have written.

Come on, my arguments are aimed at the objectivists among us.

As said I wish I'd known that long ago. That was your response to me wondering why you were saying something to me, I'm pretty sure you know I've read many times. And it clarifies a lot of past communication. I wish I'd known that in response to my and other people's posts, you include a lot of things aimed at third parties and not necessarily at all something you think we, those whose posts you are responding to, don't know and also not necessarily at all a response to what we wrote. That actually clarifies a lot. I think it's a bit confusing, but not anymore.

Anyway. I don't think you actually responded to the point I was making about how posting as you sometimes do undermines the 'point you are making'. But that's fine. It was actually interesting. And not too toxic (I hope for either one of us)

I'll leave it here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Then you haven't read the books.

Use your common sense.
That is the minimal for every book I stored.
Where did I state explicitly those are the only sections I read for every book.

Note I edited to include this in my previous post.

• Even Henry Allison with more than 40 years as a Professor specializing in Kant admitted openly his missed out a critical point in the Critique of Pure Reason.
  In the Preface of his book; Transcendental Idealism: Interpretation and Defence, Allison wrote;
  • I was awakened from my “dogmatic slumber" on this issue, however, by the work of a former student, Michelle Grier.
    First in her Dissertation and then, more substantively, in an important book based upon it, Grier has shown conclusively that for Kant Transcendental illusion is inherent in the very nature of human reason.3
  If Allison a pro-Kantian could missed out such a critical point, what more with Blackburn an anti-Kantian[?] with superficial knowledge of Kantian philosophy.

Ah!

So in your won words please tell us all what is meant by the phrase "Transcendental illusion "!
#
I can wait.

If I am not mistaken you idolize the philosophy of your great grandfather David Hume?

Hume's philosophy asserts the following;
Hume: External World is a Fabrication
viewtopic.php?t=40791

Hume: An "Unknown Something" is a Fiction
viewtopic.php?t=40813

Hume claimed those who do not agree with the above as grasping at an illusion and think it is really-real [i.e. as a mind-independent objective reality].
According to Hume why the realists are so stubborn in clinging to the above mind-independent reality is due to the inherent psychological drives in all humans via evolution that had facilitated survival and sustain the survival of the species.

From what you have posted, re the existent of an independent objective reality, you would not have agreed with Hume.

Kant was awoke from his dogmatic slumber of mind-independence [philosophical realism] and he agreed that clinging to mind-independence is delusional and labelled this with Transcendental Illusion which he implied is driven psychologically.

Allision was woken from his 'dogmatic slumber' from the precise knowledge of the principles & mechanisms of this Transcendental Illusion [after >40 years involvement with Kant] by his student.

[FlashDangerpants]

Use your common sense.
That is the minimal for every book I stored.
Where did I state explicitly those are the only sections I read for every book.

Note I edited to include this in my previous post.

• Even Henry Allison with more than 40 years as a Professor specializing in Kant admitted openly his missed out a critical point in the Critique of Pure Reason.
  In the Preface of his book; Transcendental Idealism: Interpretation and Defence, Allison wrote;
  • I was awakened from my “dogmatic slumber" on this issue, however, by the work of a former student, Michelle Grier.
    First in her Dissertation and then, more substantively, in an important book based upon it, Grier has shown conclusively that for Kant Transcendental illusion is inherent in the very nature of human reason.3
  If Allison a pro-Kantian could missed out such a critical point, what more with Blackburn an anti-Kantian[?] with superficial knowledge of Kantian philosophy.

You haven't read Blackburn, but you baselessly assert that you know more about Kant and Hume than he. I don't think you've read Hume. Have you read Allison? Have you read other Kant scholars such as Berlin? Are you well read even on your specialist topic of Kant?

It's all a bit pointless to ask really. You don't read very well. You proved that beyond all possible doubt when you fooled yourself that a professional philosopher wrote a paper that was picked up by a professional editor and published by an academic publisher with the absurd argument that people who disagree with moral realism have a cognitive deficit. It goes almost without saying of course that none of those persons committed the career suicide you ascribe to them.

That is the only book I can say for sure that you ever did try to read though. I've never seen you comment much about other books other than to describe chapter titles.

At present I have around 4100 files [books, articles, notes] in my Kant Folder.

And you have probably read 3 of them?

I spent 3 years full time directly on the Kant CPR so what others wrote about Kant is informative but they are secondary.

I just want to be clear about htis claim. You spent 3 years, 8 hours per day, reading and re-reading just that one book?

There are loads of of reputable Kantian philosophers and there are hundreds of other Kantian philosophers.
I have not read Berlin [Isaiah]'s book on Kant, if he is really significant I would have detect him within my Kantian radar.
Since you mentioned I will take a look.

Well at least you've dropped the faux humility I guess.

I don't give a damn with your doubts whether I have read whatever books or not.

I think that you do. You want me to stop asking because the truth of the matter leaves you embarassed.

Based on whatever I have read of 'Ruling Passion' especially Chapter 7 & 8 I am confident Blackburn have not grasp and understood Kant 'FULLY' of the highest precision. You have nothing to claim otherwise.

You've read two chapters of that book then. I've read them as well. There's discussion of Kant there, and you are telling me that you know better than Blackburn. So why aren't you just telling me what he got wrong? You must have noticed an error if you have made this assertion.

[Peter Holmes]

Just as there can be looking without seeing, there can be reading without understanding. Or critically engaging.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just as there can be looking without seeing, there can be reading without understanding. Or critically engaging.

Yeah. That other thing with the argument that VA thinks asserted that you and I and Sculptor have a cognitive deficit, I read that paper in the end. You have no idea how wrong VA was about its content. If that is him reading and comprehending to his general standard I might not count him as having properly read any book ever. I just can't understand how he screwed the pooch so hard there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You haven't read Blackburn, but you baselessly assert that you know more about Kant and Hume than he. I don't think you've read Hume. Have you read Allison? Have you read other Kant scholars such as Berlin? Are you well read even on your specialist topic of Kant?

It's all a bit pointless to ask really. You don't read very well. You proved that beyond all possible doubt when you fooled yourself that a professional philosopher wrote a paper that was picked up by a professional editor and published by an academic publisher with the absurd argument that people who disagree with moral realism have a cognitive deficit. It goes almost without saying of course that none of those persons committed the career suicide you ascribe to them.

That is the only book I can say for sure that you ever did try to read though. I've never seen you comment much about other books other than to describe chapter titles.

At present I have around 4100 files [books, articles, notes] in my Kant Folder.

And you have probably read 3 of them?

Forget to mention they are in 118 folders and sub-folders.
"I have probably read only "1" of them" if are that dumb.

I spent 3 years full time directly on the Kant CPR so what others wrote about Kant is informative but they are secondary.

I just want to be clear about htis claim. You spent 3 years, 8 hours per day, reading and re-reading just that one book?

Did not expect you to be that naive.
Do "full time" students on any subject [medicine, etc.] merely read one book?
In my case, "full time" meant my main focus is on the Critique of Pure Reason for 3 years, i.e. at least 75% of the time spent reading and researching is on all matter related to Kant's CPR and his other books.

I don't give a damn with your doubts whether I have read whatever books or not.

I think that you do. You want me to stop asking because the truth of the matter leaves you embarassed.

You can continue to do what you like.
I am confident of what I need to do to meet the objectives of my philosophical projects.

Based on whatever I have read of 'Ruling Passion' especially Chapter 7 & 8 I am confident Blackburn have not grasp and understood Kant 'FULLY' of the highest precision. You have nothing to claim otherwise.

You've read two chapters of that book then. I've read them as well. There's discussion of Kant there, and you are telling me that you know better than Blackburn. So why aren't you just telling me what he got wrong? You must have noticed an error if you have made this assertion.

One point is Blackburn [and the majority who read Kant] understood Kant's Ethics to be purely and literally deontological, e.g. "where Kant mentioned it is a categorical imperative 'lying is not permissible' those who do not get the nuances, meant it is absolute even if one's children and other innocent lives are at stake.

Surely they must use their brain to understand a person of Kant's intelligence and rationality would not have insisted on such an imperative as absolute.

The rational view is that those have such a belief must understand they have misunderstood Kant and missed the nuances Kant presented.

Note I have argued whatever is a categorical imperative is never to be enforced but merely be used as an ideal and a guide only.

One point is enough, I won't go into the others.