Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

[q

You have appointed yourself as the measure of what should be the measure for everyone else.

Not at all. God is that measure: I have not "appointed" Him. I have "pointed" Him out to you, though.

You believe in God, and keep telling me that I should also believe in him, but I don't believe in God, and I don't tell you that you shouldn't. You seem to think you are in a position to tell me what is best for me, whereas I think it appropriate to let you be the judge of what is best for you.

The explanation is very simple. I believe that morality is objective: so knowing about that morality is the absolute best thing for all. You think morality is subjective, so the only possible "judge" would be the individual.

But here's what I don't understand: you seem to suggest that the fact that, as you say, "I don't tell you that you shouldn't" is somehow a good thing. Of course, it really can't be. All it can be is something you personally prefer, perhaps. But it certainly can't be, from a subjectivism perspective, and in any sense binding to anybody else, "bad" to "tell" anybody anything.

How evil do you think you would be if it weren't for God?

That's an interesting question. Of course, the answer's hypothetical. But as I know myself, I'd have to say I'd be a rather different person than I am. The reason that I say that is that I've always been inclined to think about the logical consequences of suppositions about the world; and the logical suppositions, were I to be an Atheist, would be more like Nietzsche's than they would be about the values I support now.

So would I act on them? Maybe not all the time. But I doubt I'd be squeamish about doing so, when it was to my advantage to do so. There wouldn't be good reasons for me not to, and I think the incentives to behave like that would probably be sufficient.

The more you say about Nietzsche, the more he comes across to me as something of a drama queen. For most of us, social pressure is enough to keep our behaviour within reasonable bounds, but for those who need something a bit stronger to keep their primitive urges under control, maybe the wrath of God is the only deterrent that works, I don't know.

Would others be happy to see you characterize Nietzsche as a "drama queen"? Maybe not. But there is something to it. Certainly he liked to put things as dramatically as he could. However, that didn't make him wrong, for all that.

What Nietzsche certainly was, was courageous in interpreting the logical outcomes of Atheism. He took the Atheist set of suppositions, and ran fearlessly with them as far as they would logically go. And you would think this would make him a hero to Atheists; but in point of fact, I find he scares the living daylights out of half of them, at least -- the half that doesn't take their Atheism to its logical conclusions. He unnerves them. So they prefer to retain only his critique of God, and to avoid completely thinking about his very incisive and much more substantial expositions on the logical consequences of Atheism.

I mean I don't like it.

A rather palid indictment, isn't it?

It is just an opinion, and was only offered as such. I don't expect, or want, to influence anyone else's view.

So you wouldn't want to influence anybody to have to stop slavery?

Legal abortion isn't murder.

Killing Jews was legal in Germany. That didn't make it moral.

I didn't know that; I just assumed that Hitler was powerful enough to be able to ignore the law. It would be interesting to know how that particular piece of legislation was worded.

There are lots of sites on that, if you're interested. One is: https://alphahistory.com/holocaust/anti-jewish-laws/

First you tried to paint me as a disciple of Nietzsche, and now Freud;

Well, you are using Freud's argument. You may not know it, but he invented it; and it became so influential that it's become part of the common mythology of sexual libertinism in the West. So you may not know about him, but you're being conditioned by him indirectly, nevertheless. That is, unless you want to try to convince me you accidentally discovered sexual-repression theory on your own.

...as you know, it isn't that long, in historical terms, since many people thought slavery was morally acceptable...

In fact, in much of the world even today, many people don't regard it as wrong. So it has subjectivity on its side, for sure. But you're saying that's okay? So long as subjectively the enslavers think it's fine, then for them it's fine to enslave folks?

I don't know this at first hand, but according to various comments I have seen on this forum, the Bible doesn't describe God as condemning slavery.

I've heard that said, too. But those who say it are disingenuous. If they knew Scripture better, or even cared why it said what it said, they wouldn't make that mistake. So in general, when somebody floats that claim to me, I just ignore them. It only means they don't know what they are talking about.

We might draw a parallel with Evolutionism. If you ever wondered why black folks in the South were characterized by the racists as "primitive" and "monkeys," it's because the advocates of slavery were trying to appeal through Evolutionism. Now, would you wish to argue that because Evolutionism has been abused in that particular way, that Evolutionism is responsible for advocating slavery? Or would you, instead, say that the theory was being opportunistically misused by those with an agenda that Evolutionism itself does not support?

Take your pick, I guess.

[Dontaskme]

IC WROTE:

God is that measure: I have not "appointed" Him. I have "pointed" Him out to you, though

You cannot point to you’re opinion IC as if it exists as an actual object you can hold in your hand, or put in a jar for examination.

Nice try though… dream on IC… and remember, nothing ever happened in a dream.

How does one measure infinity? comprising of nothing more than a seamless stream of endless causeless causes.


Causeless causes ad infinitum….you are truly obsessed with causeless causes.

Mind you don’t go mad mistaking the dream world for reality.

Take your pick I guesss

You are an embarrassment.

[Dontaskme]

IC WROTE:

If you have any option, by definition, you have the option of doing something evil instead of doing the good. If you can do only the good, then what does it mean to have any "option"?

Who are you talking to? Are you talking to a man?

If you KNOW you are talking to a man, then you are right to wonder the meaning of a man having options; especially if they only have one, which would be absurd since the very definition of the word option is dual.

Therefore it is obvious that only an immoral man can be moral. shhh…don’t speak about options.

The logic rationale in the instance of one’s knowing knowledge would be , if a person who never KNEW they were being moral, could they ever be moral?

And could a person have the option to be either immoral or moral in a reality built upon choiceless choices, in a causeless caused universe.

The “You” in all of this narrative is an embarrassment.

[Harbal]

[q

Not at all. God is that measure: I have not "appointed" Him. I have "pointed" Him out to you, though.

You believe in God, and keep telling me that I should also believe in him, but I don't believe in God, and I don't tell you that you shouldn't. You seem to think you are in a position to tell me what is best for me, whereas I think it appropriate to let you be the judge of what is best for you.

The explanation is very simple. I believe that morality is objective: so knowing about that morality is the absolute best thing for all. You think morality is subjective, so the only possible "judge" would be the individual.

But here's what I don't understand: you seem to suggest that the fact that, as you say, "I don't tell you that you shouldn't" is somehow a good thing. Of course, it really can't be. All it can be is something you personally prefer, perhaps. But it certainly can't be, from a subjectivism perspective, and in any sense binding to anybody else, "bad" to "tell" anybody anything.

That's an interesting question. Of course, the answer's hypothetical. But as I know myself, I'd have to say I'd be a rather different person than I am. The reason that I say that is that I've always been inclined to think about the logical consequences of suppositions about the world; and the logical suppositions, were I to be an Atheist, would be more like Nietzsche's than they would be about the values I support now.

So would I act on them? Maybe not all the time. But I doubt I'd be squeamish about doing so, when it was to my advantage to do so. There wouldn't be good reasons for me not to, and I think the incentives to behave like that would probably be sufficient.

The more you say about Nietzsche, the more he comes across to me as something of a drama queen. For most of us, social pressure is enough to keep our behaviour within reasonable bounds, but for those who need something a bit stronger to keep their primitive urges under control, maybe the wrath of God is the only deterrent that works, I don't know.

Would others be happy to see you characterize Nietzsche as a "drama queen"? Maybe not. But there is something to it. Certainly he liked to put things as dramatically as he could. However, that didn't make him wrong, for all that.

What Nietzsche certainly was, was courageous in interpreting the logical outcomes of Atheism. He took the Atheist set of suppositions, and ran fearlessly with them as far as they would logically go. And you would think this would make him a hero to Atheists; but in point of fact, I find he scares the living daylights out of half of them, at least -- the half that doesn't take their Atheism to its logical conclusions. He unnerves them. So they prefer to retain only his critique of God, and to avoid completely thinking about his very incisive and much more substantial expositions on the logical consequences of Atheism.

A rather palid indictment, isn't it?

It is just an opinion, and was only offered as such. I don't expect, or want, to influence anyone else's view.

So you wouldn't want to influence anybody to have to stop slavery?

Killing Jews was legal in Germany. That didn't make it moral.

I didn't know that; I just assumed that Hitler was powerful enough to be able to ignore the law. It would be interesting to know how that particular piece of legislation was worded.

There are lots of sites on that, if you're interested. One is: https://alphahistory.com/holocaust/anti-jewish-laws/

First you tried to paint me as a disciple of Nietzsche, and now Freud;

Well, you are using Freud's argument. You may not know it, but he invented it; and it became so influential that it's become part of the common mythology of sexual libertinism in the West. So you may not know about him, but you're being conditioned by him indirectly, nevertheless. That is, unless you want to try to convince me you accidentally discovered sexual-repression theory on your own.

...as you know, it isn't that long, in historical terms, since many people thought slavery was morally acceptable...

In fact, in much of the world even today, many people don't regard it as wrong. So it has subjectivity on its side, for sure. But you're saying that's okay? So long as subjectively the enslavers think it's fine, then for them it's fine to enslave folks?

I don't know this at first hand, but according to various comments I have seen on this forum, the Bible doesn't describe God as condemning slavery.

I've heard that said, too. But those who say it are disingenuous. If they knew Scripture better, or even cared why it said what it said, they wouldn't make that mistake. So in general, when somebody floats that claim to me, I just ignore them. It only means they don't know what they are talking about.

We might draw a parallel with Evolutionism. If you ever wondered why black folks in the South were characterized by the racists as "primitive" and "monkeys," it's because the advocates of slavery were trying to appeal through Evolutionism. Now, would you wish to argue that because Evolutionism has been abused in that particular way, that Evolutionism is responsible for advocating slavery? Or would you, instead, say that the theory was being opportunistically misused by those with an agenda that Evolutionism itself does not support?

Take your pick, I guess.

I spent quite some time replying to this, but then the site logged me out and I lost it all. I don't know if I will redo it, it depends on how long the severe temper tantrum I am experiencing lasts.

[Ansiktsburk]

I suppose the word ”intersubjective” has come up once or twice in this 500 pages thread

[Veritas Aequitas]

I suppose the word ”intersubjective” has come up once or twice in this 500 pages thread

Noted, it's 20 times mostly mentioned by me.
To me, objectivity [FSK conditioned] is intersubjectivity.
Do you have any views on this?

[Ansiktsburk]

I suppose the word ”intersubjective” has come up once or twice in this 500 pages thread

Noted, it's 20 times mostly mentioned by me.
To me, objectivity [FSK conditioned] is intersubjectivity.
Do you have any views on this?

That I’m probably with you on this one.

[Harbal]

[q

Not at all. God is that measure: I have not "appointed" Him. I have "pointed" Him out to you, though.

You believe in God, and keep telling me that I should also believe in him, but I don't believe in God, and I don't tell you that you shouldn't. You seem to think you are in a position to tell me what is best for me, whereas I think it appropriate to let you be the judge of what is best for you.

The explanation is very simple. I believe that morality is objective: so knowing about that morality is the absolute best thing for all. You think morality is subjective, so the only possible "judge" would be the individual.

Fair enough, I see what you mean. At least you seem to acknowledge that my solipsism isn't my fault.

But here's what I don't understand: you seem to suggest that the fact that, as you say, "I don't tell you that you shouldn't" is somehow a good thing. Of course, it really can't be. All it can be is something you personally prefer, perhaps.

Why do you find it hard to understand that I have personal preferences; don't we all?

The more you say about Nietzsche, the more he comes across to me as something of a drama queen. For most of us, social pressure is enough to keep our behaviour within reasonable bounds, but for those who need something a bit stronger to keep their primitive urges under control, maybe the wrath of God is the only deterrent that works, I don't know.

Would others be happy to see you characterize Nietzsche as a "drama queen"? Maybe not. But there is something to it. Certainly he liked to put things as dramatically as he could. However, that didn't make him wrong, for all that.

What Nietzsche certainly was, was courageous in interpreting the logical outcomes of Atheism. He took the Atheist set of suppositions, and ran fearlessly with them as far as they would logically go. And you would think this would make him a hero to Atheists; but in point of fact, I find he scares the living daylights out of half of them, at least -- the half that doesn't take their Atheism to its logical conclusions. He unnerves them. So they prefer to retain only his critique of God, and to avoid completely thinking about his very incisive and much more substantial expositions on the logical consequences of Atheism.

But we are not discussing the consequences of atheism. We are talking about objective morality, and by implication, the existence of God. I deny that those things exist in reality, but I am making no comment on whether mankind does or does not need religion in order to be civilised.

It is just an opinion, and was only offered as such. I don't expect, or want, to influence anyone else's view.

So you wouldn't want to influence anybody to have to stop slavery?

My opinion was about human nature, not slavery.

First you tried to paint me as a disciple of Nietzsche, and now Freud;

Well, you are using Freud's argument. You may not know it, but he invented it; and it became so influential that it's become part of the common mythology of sexual libertinism in the West. So you may not know about him, but you're being conditioned by him indirectly, nevertheless. That is, unless you want to try to convince me you accidentally discovered sexual-repression theory on your own.

I never mentioned Freud, and I didn't have Freud in my mind, so please stop trying to foist him onto me. For most normal adults, sex plays a big part in their emotional and psychological well being. Just ask a few normal adults if you don't believe me.

...as you know, it isn't that long, in historical terms, since many people thought slavery was morally acceptable...

In fact, in much of the world even today, many people don't regard it as wrong. So it has subjectivity on its side, for sure. But you're saying that's okay? So long as subjectively the enslavers think it's fine, then for them it's fine to enslave folks?

I have never suggested that I think slavery is okay; I don't think it is okay. I might condemn the slaver for thinking it's okay, but that won't necessarily stop him from continuing to think it. And when you turn up with your objective moral truth, do you think you will have more success in changing his mind? How are you going to demonstrate that the wrongness of what he is doing is an objective fact?

I don't know this at first hand, but according to various comments I have seen on this forum, the Bible doesn't describe God as condemning slavery.

I've heard that said, too. But those who say it are disingenuous. If they knew Scripture better, or even cared why it said what it said, they wouldn't make that mistake. So in general, when somebody floats that claim to me, I just ignore them. It only means they don't know what they are talking about.

Well I wouldn't know either way.

We might draw a parallel with Evolutionism. If you ever wondered why black folks in the South were characterized by the racists as "primitive" and "monkeys," it's because the advocates of slavery were trying to appeal through Evolutionism. Now, would you wish to argue that because Evolutionism has been abused in that particular way, that Evolutionism is responsible for advocating slavery? Or would you, instead, say that the theory was being opportunistically misused by those with an agenda that Evolutionism itself does not support?

But evolution didn't leave us any written texts to suggest it condoned slavery, did it?

[Immanuel Can]

I spent quite some time replying to this, but then the site logged me out and I lost it all. I don't know if I will redo it, it depends on how long the severe temper tantrum I am experiencing lasts.

I know the feeling...that's awful. Had it happen many times.

Sorry, mate; that's a pain. It has resulted in many laptops flying across rooms, I'm sure.

[Immanuel Can]

But here's what I don't understand: you seem to suggest that the fact that, as you say, "I don't tell you that you shouldn't" is somehow a good thing. Of course, it really can't be. All it can be is something you personally prefer, perhaps.

Why do you find it hard to understand that I have personal preferences; don't we all?

I have no problem at all imagining that you have a personal preference; all I have difficulty imagining is that, since it's just subjective, you have some expectation other people ought to share that assessment. If subjectivism were true, you wouldn't have any reason to expect that at all.

The more you say about Nietzsche, the more he comes across to me as something of a drama queen. For most of us, social pressure is enough to keep our behaviour within reasonable bounds, but for those who need something a bit stronger to keep their primitive urges under control, maybe the wrath of God is the only deterrent that works, I don't know.

Would others be happy to see you characterize Nietzsche as a "drama queen"? Maybe not. But there is something to it. Certainly he liked to put things as dramatically as he could. However, that didn't make him wrong, for all that.

What Nietzsche certainly was, was courageous in interpreting the logical outcomes of Atheism. He took the Atheist set of suppositions, and ran fearlessly with them as far as they would logically go. And you would think this would make him a hero to Atheists; but in point of fact, I find he scares the living daylights out of half of them, at least -- the half that doesn't take their Atheism to its logical conclusions. He unnerves them. So they prefer to retain only his critique of God, and to avoid completely thinking about his very incisive and much more substantial expositions on the logical consequences of Atheism.

But we are not discussing the consequences of atheism. We are talking about objective morality, and by implication, the existence of God.

That's exactly what Nietzsche showed were intimately intertwined issues. His argument, in an oversimplistic nutshell, goes, "No God, no objective morality." And by definition, Atheism means "No gods." So the three are inextricable: God, Atheism and the possibility of morality -- one cannot speak of the first two without implicating each other, and cannot speak of either without making consequences for the possibility of morality.

It is just an opinion, and was only offered as such. I don't expect, or want, to influence anyone else's view.

So you wouldn't want to influence anybody to have to stop slavery?

My opinion was about human nature, not slavery.

But by way of subjectivism, you'd still have to think that it's no obligation of yours to combat or even criticize slavery. You'd have to think it's perfectly reasonable to let slavery be...so long as somebody subjectively likes it.

First you tried to paint me as a disciple of Nietzsche, and now Freud;

Well, you are using Freud's argument. You may not know it, but he invented it; and it became so influential that it's become part of the common mythology of sexual libertinism in the West. So you may not know about him, but you're being conditioned by him indirectly, nevertheless. That is, unless you want to try to convince me you accidentally discovered sexual-repression theory on your own.

I never mentioned Freud, and I didn't have Freud in my mind, so please stop trying to foist him onto me.

You did it yourself, without realizing it.

Some secular writer (It was either Conrad or Golding, but I forget which...somebody whose interest was in the origins of evil) once wrote, "A man has to know what devils lay claim to his soul." I don't mean this insultingly, but Freud, we might say, is one of your "devils," because whether you know that your idea came from him or not, it certainly did. The sexual-repression argument was his invention. I don't know where you absorbed it, but he's the guy.

And it's not at all true. It never was. People do not get mentally ill or die if they control certain of their urges. They may actually become stronger and more moral from the experience.

...as you know, it isn't that long, in historical terms, since many people thought slavery was morally acceptable...

In fact, in much of the world even today, many people don't regard it as wrong. So it has subjectivity on its side, for sure. But you're saying that's okay? So long as subjectively the enslavers think it's fine, then for them it's fine to enslave folks?

I have never suggested that I think slavery is okay; I don't think it is okay. I might condemn the slaver for thinking it's okay, but that won't necessarily stop him from continuing to think it.

Then you would never have joined the Abolition movement. You would have been one of the passive disapprovers that allowed the institution to floursh?

And when you turn up with your objective moral truth, do you think you will have more success in changing his mind?

William Wilberforce certainly did.

How are you going to demonstrate that the wrongness of what he is doing is an objective fact?

Many were convinced by Wilberforce...in fact, the entire British Empire, eventually. But even if he had not been able to convince anybody, at least he could have, with clear conscience, fought slavery to the death -- just as he did -- knowing that for sure, he was doing exactly the right and moral thing. But then, Wilberforce was a good evangelical Christian, so he could know about the objective wrongness of enslaving men who are "made in the image of God."

We might draw a parallel with Evolutionism. If you ever wondered why black folks in the South were characterized by the racists as "primitive" and "monkeys," it's because the advocates of slavery were trying to appeal through Evolutionism. Now, would you wish to argue that because Evolutionism has been abused in that particular way, that Evolutionism is responsible for advocating slavery? Or would you, instead, say that the theory was being opportunistically misused by those with an agenda that Evolutionism itself does not support?

But evolution didn't leave us any written texts to suggest it condoned slavery, did it?

Neither does Christianity. But evil people are opportunists. So some took the opportunity that the Bible talks about the conditions of some Christians who had been enslaved (as indeed, there were many among the slaves who became Christians) and they tried to argue from that that Christianity was approving of the instution, rather than explaining to those who were trapped in a ubiquitous institution how they could still be servants of God.

But mention is not approval. Mention can be disapproval, in fact, depending on what else is said.

So, for example, the Scripture explicitly tell slaves, " Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men."

Now, in the day it was not talking about chattel slavery at all, I think. And you can tell this because the term "slave" is said to be something one could choose to "become" (but should not). (One doesn't choose to become a chattel or war slave, so the instruction not to "become" one would make no sense.) I think it's evident it was talking about debt slavery, when a man of the same "race" as others sells himself into servitude to pay off some financial obligation, as was done in Israel at the time. That was the thing Christians were taught to avoid. However, the command has implications for the other types of slavery: and the principle is, "You belong to God; do not belong to men. But if you're trapped, you can still please God. It's not hopeless for you. Just honour God in the role you find yourself in." That's not a message of slavery, but a message of hope for the hopeless. Even those trapped in slavery, God does not despise or abandon.

Sadly, slavery has proved to be a permanent institution among men. It's not only ancient, but it's contemporary. Secular anti-slave charities inform us statistically that there are more slaves (of various kinds: wage, war, chattel, sex, sweatshop...) than at any time in history, and I'm sorry to say it. But it's pretty good stuff to know that God does not forget those in such horrid circumstances, and loves them in spite of their exploited and degraded condition, and that He longs for them to be free too.

[Dontaskme]

HARBAL wrote:

For most normal adults, sex plays a big part in their emotional and psychological well being. Just ask a few normal adults if you don't believe me.

Do you fancy a Shag?

[Harbal]

But here's what I don't understand: you seem to suggest that the fact that, as you say, "I don't tell you that you shouldn't" is somehow a good thing. Of course, it really can't be. All it can be is something you personally prefer, perhaps.

Why do you find it hard to understand that I have personal preferences; don't we all?

I have no problem at all imagining that you have a personal preference; all I have difficulty imagining is that, since it's just subjective, you have some expectation other people ought to share that assessment. If subjectivism were true, you wouldn't have any reason to expect that at all.

I don't remember saying I expected it. I might hope others share my opinion. But even if I did expect it, it wouldn't make objective morality real.

But we are not discussing the consequences of atheism. We are talking about objective morality, and by implication, the existence of God.

That's exactly what Nietzsche showed were intimately intertwined issues. His argument, in an oversimplistic nutshell, goes, "No God, no objective morality." And by definition, Atheism means "No gods." So the three are inextricable: God, Atheism and the possibility of morality -- one cannot speak of the first two without implicating each other, and cannot speak of either without making consequences for the possibility of morality.

I don't care what Nietzsche showed or said, you are supposed to be addressing what I say. I am making one simple claim, which is that it is perfectly possible to have moral values without believing in God; in fact, it is difficult not to have them, regardless of your religious beliefs. The social implications of atheism are not my concern.

My opinion was about human nature, not slavery.

But by way of subjectivism, you'd still have to think that it's no obligation of yours to combat or even criticize slavery. You'd have to think it's perfectly reasonable to let slavery be...so long as somebody subjectively likes it.

No, I don't have to think that, and I don't in fact think it. Why should I be any less motivated by my own moral values than you are by what you suppose to be God's objective values? If I am motivated by my values, you can't alter that by telling me I can't be.

I never mentioned Freud, and I didn't have Freud in my mind, so please stop trying to foist him onto me.
You did it yourself, without realizing it.

Some secular writer (It was either Conrad or Golding, but I forget which...somebody whose interest was in the origins of evil) once wrote, "A man has to know what devils lay claim to his soul." I don't mean this insultingly, but Freud, we might say, is one of your "devils," because whether you know that your idea came from him or not, it certainly did. The sexual-repression argument was his invention. I don't know where you absorbed it, but he's the guy.

And it's not at all true. It never was. People do not get mentally ill or die if they control certain of their urges. They may actually become stronger and more moral from the experience.

Human sexuality is not something that can just be turned off, it needs an outlet. I will repeat; for most normal adults, sex plays a big part in their emotional and psychological well being. That view is not informed by Freud, but by my own experience, and by conversations I have had with various people.

People do not get mentally ill or die if they control certain of their urges. They may actually become stronger and more moral from the experience.

That was worth quoting a second time, just for its comedy value.

I have never suggested that I think slavery is okay; I don't think it is okay. I might condemn the slaver for thinking it's okay, but that won't necessarily stop him from continuing to think it.

Then you would never have joined the Abolition movement. You would have been one of the passive disapprovers that allowed the institution to floursh?

I have never been one to join movements, so that is probably very true.

And when you turn up with your objective moral truth, do you think you will have more success in changing his mind?

William Wilberforce certainly did.

Oh no! not another figure from history.

[Harbal]

HARBAL wrote:

For most normal adults, sex plays a big part in their emotional and psychological well being. Just ask a few normal adults if you don't believe me.

Do you fancy a Shag?

Perhaps after IC has logged out.

He disapproves of uncontrolled urges.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't care what Nietzsche showed or said,

I know. But if you cared about making rational sense of morality, you would. Because he provides the right line of argument, the one all the moral subjectivists are so desperate to avoid seeing.

I am making one simple claim, which is that it is perfectly possible to have moral values without believing in God;

Nobody's even doubted that's true. The only problem is that, according to subjectivism, such "values" are not actually "valuable" at all. Just arbitrary.

My opinion was about human nature, not slavery.

But by way of subjectivism, you'd still have to think that it's no obligation of yours to combat or even criticize slavery. You'd have to think it's perfectly reasonable to let slavery be...so long as somebody subjectively likes it.

No, I don't have to think that, and I don't in fact think it. Why should I be any less motivated by my own moral values than you are by what you suppose to be God's objective values? If I am motivated by my values, you can't alter that by telling me I can't be.

But that's not the problem. The problem is one of your own creation: namely, that you have insisted that morality is subjective, and so applies only to you. But slavery is a matter that involves others. So your "morality" is powerless, logically speaking, to tell us any thing about the moral status of slavery...far less to justify you interfering with somebody else's slavery arrangement.

So you can't be an Abolitionist, and be a subjectivist. You can't tell anybody else what to do.

Human sexuality is not something that can just be turned off,

Every human desire can be. You don't have to overeat, sleep all day, or follow any desire you have. You can control when, why and under what circumstances you act on that desire. That used to be what was called "having self-control." And it used to make people into better people...before Freud convinced everybody they just had to give in to every sexual whim.

And when you turn up with your objective moral truth, do you think you will have more success in changing his mind?

William Wilberforce certainly did.

Oh no! not another figure from history.

Yes. Just the man who was pretty much single-handedly responsible for ending the slave trade throughout the British Empire, and gave his own life to that cause. Only him. You can ignore him, because he didn't share with you the subjectivist indifference to the suffering of slaves.

[Harbal]

I don't care what Nietzsche showed or said,

I know. But if you cared about making rational sense of morality, you would. Because he provides the right line of argument, the one all the moral subjectivists are so desperate to avoid seeing.

I don't care about making rational sense of morality, so I don't really have to worry about finding myself in a desperate situation.

I am making one simple claim, which is that it is perfectly possible to have moral values without believing in God;

Nobody's even doubted that's true. The only problem is that, according to subjectivism, such "values" are not actually "valuable" at all. Just arbitrary.

Well I don't have that problem; what more can I say?

No, I don't have to think that, and I don't in fact think it. Why should I be any less motivated by my own moral values than you are by what you suppose to be God's objective values? If I am motivated by my values, you can't alter that by telling me I can't be.

But that's not the problem. The problem is one of your own creation: namely, that you have insisted that morality is subjective, and so applies only to you. But slavery is a matter that involves others. So your "morality" is powerless, logically speaking, to tell us any thing about the moral status of slavery...far less to justify you interfering with somebody else's slavery arrangement.

So you can't be an Abolitionist, and be a subjectivist. You can't tell anybody else what to do.

Nonsense, I am just as able to tell people what to do as you are, and I suspect most of them would prefer what I was telling them. Admittedly, I'm not as inclined to tell people what they should do as you are, but I still could.

Human sexuality is not something that can just be turned off,

Every human desire can be. You don't have to overeat, sleep all day, or follow any desire you have. You can control when, why and under what circumstances you act on that desire. That used to be what was called "having self-control." And it used to make people into better people...before Freud convinced everybody they just had to give in to every sexual whim.

You think people give in to their sexual whims because of Freud?

Oh no! not another figure from history.

Yes. Just the man who was pretty much single-handedly responsible for ending the slave trade throughout the British Empire, and gave his own life to that cause. Only him. You can ignore him, because he didn't share with you the subjectivist indifference to the suffering of slaves.

I would say, good for him, but I'm probably not allowed to.