TRUMP AHEAD?

[Atla]

I'm not going to change my mind about the subjective nature of morality, because I know what it is from personal experience.

You can continue this for years, IC can never imagine what you're talking about because he has never experienced the feeling of the conscience before. Now most sociopaths are somewhat intelligent, so at this point most of them figure out that others do have this feeling and they don't. But IC isn't intelligent either, so he just thinks that you're making up stuff.

[Harbal]

I'm not going to change my mind about the subjective nature of morality, because I know what it is from personal experience.

You can continue this for years, IC can never imagine what you're talking about because he has never experienced the feeling of the conscience before. Now most sociopaths are somewhat intelligent, so at this point most of them figure out that others do have this feeling and they don't. But IC isn't intelligent either, so he just thinks that you're making up stuff.

Well if IC is being honest about not understanding how we have a personal sense of moral right and wrong, then I suppose that would make him a sociopath, but I'm not sure he is being honest. It would certainly be unusual if he were.

[Atla]

I'm not going to change my mind about the subjective nature of morality, because I know what it is from personal experience.

You can continue this for years, IC can never imagine what you're talking about because he has never experienced the feeling of the conscience before. Now most sociopaths are somewhat intelligent, so at this point most of them figure out that others do have this feeling and they don't. But IC isn't intelligent either, so he just thinks that you're making up stuff.

Well if IC is being honest about not understanding how we have a personal sense of moral right and wrong, then I suppose that would make him a sociopath, but I'm not sure he is being honest. It would certainly be unusual if he were.

Why would it be unusual? There's a lot more of them than most people realize. And religion attracts them.

IC is simply a religious sociopath who is trying to make God put him into Heaven after he dies. So he's trying to score points with God.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think you have an argument that is remotely convincing, to see it is what I would like.

We can do that.

Okay, let's do it then.

You could start by explaining what you think morality actually is.

Funny...that's exactly the first question I was going to put to you. So I agree: let's start there.

I have some idea of what "morality" means. You have none I can identify. So help me out here. Let's agree on what any "moral" system (objective, subjective, Nihilistic, or whatever) must be able to deliver at minimum. I've already listed one such criterion in my previous conversations with you, but let me float it to you again, and see if we agree....

Any "moral" system must be able to deliver, at minimum:

• at least ONE duty (or "should" or "ought," or "moral obligation") to be imposed on ONE person (or on more than that).

That's only one criterion. But let's talk about it, first. Do you agree? Or do you wish to substitute a different point for the first requirement of a genuinely "moral" theory?

[Immanuel Can]

Right! There’s no such thing as objective morality, subjective morality is unworkable, and there’s really no such thing as morality.

Well, I commend you on your consistency. That's exactly what a person who believes morality is individual would have to end up thinking. At least it's rational, which makes it at least more sensible than Subjectivism will ever be...if the assumption that there's no basis for objective morality is true.

Now we need to ask, is that correct?

Are you now going to say that objective morality is correct bad on God, a feature whose existence has never been proved to exist?

I don't know what "correct bad" means. Help me out here, if you would.

[Immanuel Can]

So he's trying to score points with God.

You really don't have the foggiest idea what Christians believe?

I'm surprised. I would have thought that at least some vestige of awareness remains in the general culture, but maybe not...

[commonsense]

Well, I commend you on your consistency. That's exactly what a person who believes morality is individual would have to end up thinking. At least it's rational, which makes it at least more sensible than Subjectivism will ever be...if the assumption that there's no basis for objective morality is true.

Now we need to ask, is that correct?

Are you now going to say that objective morality is correct bad on God, a feature whose existence has never been proved to exist?

I don't know what "correct bad" means. Help me out here, if you would.

Sorry. bad was a slip of the fingers. Just ignore the word. I will edit it out.

[Atla]

So he's trying to score points with God.

You really don't have the foggiest idea what Christians believe?

I'm surprised. I would have thought that at least some vestige of awareness remains in the general culture, but maybe not...

If you weren't trying to score points with God, you wouldn't have written 20k+ pointless comments here.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you now going to say that objective morality is correct bad on God, a feature whose existence has never been proved to exist?

I don't know what "correct bad" means. Help me out here, if you would.

Sorry. bad was a slip of the fingers. Just ignore the word. I will edit it out.

No problem. Would you be so kind as to rephrase the question itself? I seem to be missing the intention.

[Immanuel Can]

So he's trying to score points with God.

You really don't have the foggiest idea what Christians believe?

I'm surprised. I would have thought that at least some vestige of awareness remains in the general culture, but maybe not...

If you weren't trying to score points with God, you wouldn't have written 20k+ pointless comments here.

You don't know that Christians don't "score points with God," or anything equivalent?

[Atla]

You really don't have the foggiest idea what Christians believe?

I'm surprised. I would have thought that at least some vestige of awareness remains in the general culture, but maybe not...

If you weren't trying to score points with God, you wouldn't have written 20k+ pointless comments here.

You don't know that Christians don't "score points with God," or anything equivalent?

Yes in theory, but you try to do it in practice anyway.

[Harbal]

We can do that.

Okay, let's do it then.

You could start by explaining what you think morality actually is.

Funny...that's exactly the first question I was going to put to you. So I agree: let's start there.

I have some idea of what "morality" means. You have none I can identify. So help me out here. Let's agree on what any "moral" system (objective, subjective, Nihilistic, or whatever) must be able to deliver at minimum.

I don't know how we suddenly came to be talking about this concept of a "moral system". While I am happy to discuss morality, I'm afraid I know nothing about moral systems.

Any "moral" system must be able to deliver, at minimum:

at least ONE duty (or "should" or "ought," or "moral obligation") to be imposed on ONE person (or on more than that).

But what is the purpose of a moral system, would you say? Before we talk about imposing "duties" on people to abide by moral systems, shouldn't we first establish what our reasons for wanting them are?

That's only one criterion. But let's talk about it, first. Do you agree? Or do you wish to substitute a different point for the first requirement of a genuinely "moral" theory?

I think the value of morality lies in how much happier, safer and more pleasant it makes life for us all. If we treat each other with kindness and respect, we all benefit. That, I would say, is the underlying "theory" of morality.

[Immanuel Can]

If you weren't trying to score points with God, you wouldn't have written 20k+ pointless comments here.

You don't know that Christians don't "score points with God," or anything equivalent?

Yes in theory, but you try to do it in practice anyway.

You have no idea what I do, of course, or of whatever motivates me to do it. What you would know is what argument I raise...if you'd ever address it. Throwing mud is sooo much easier than thinking.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, let's do it then.

You could start by explaining what you think morality actually is.

Funny...that's exactly the first question I was going to put to you. So I agree: let's start there.

I have some idea of what "morality" means. You have none I can identify. So help me out here. Let's agree on what any "moral" system (objective, subjective, Nihilistic, or whatever) must be able to deliver at minimum.

I don't know how we suddenly came to be talking about this concept of a "moral system". While I am happy to discuss morality, I'm afraid I know nothing about moral systems.

Everybody's got a moral system. If you don't know you do, then this will be new information for you...but that's fine.

Subjectivism seems to be yours. I know you don't recognize the word, but if you ever need an accurate name for what you are espousing, that's it.

Any "moral" system must be able to deliver, at minimum:

at least ONE duty (or "should" or "ought," or "moral obligation") to be imposed on ONE person (or on more than that).

But what is the purpose of a moral system, would you say?

No, no...no skating away, now.

I asked you a reasonable question, and gave you my first criterion. You owe me a response, in fairness. Do you believe that anything worth of being called "moral" should be able to impose one moral duty on at least one person?

Before we talk about imposing "duties" on people to abide by moral systems, shouldn't we first establish what our reasons for wanting them are?

No, because our "reasons for wanting them" are immaterial if we don't know what it is we want. What's relevant, then, is a definition of what we're claiming to want."

Hey, you're the one who said to me, "You could start by explaining what you think morality is." I gave you my first criterion, and you've said nothing about it. Fair's fair. What's your first criterion? Or would you rather respond to whether or not you agree with mine?

I'll take either one.

That's only one criterion. But let's talk about it, first. Do you agree? Or do you wish to substitute a different point for the first requirement of a genuinely "moral" theory?

I think the value of morality lies in how much happier, safer and more pleasant it makes life for us all.

Stop. You haven't said which "morality." Do you really think The Hammurabi Code, Communist 'morality', The Final Solution, Social Darwnism,The Bushido Code or Sharia makes life "happier, safer and more pleasant for us all." Well, those are codes that sizeable numbers of people have accepted as their "morality." But I can't imagine you mean any of those, because the folly of that would be too, too obvious.

Which code makes everybody ""happier, safer and more pleasant for us all." You need to say it. Are you backing the English post-Protestant morality of England in the Late 20th Century, which is what you were raised with, no doubt?

[Atla]

You don't know that Christians don't "score points with God," or anything equivalent?

Yes in theory, but you try to do it in practice anyway.

You have no idea what I do, of course, or of whatever motivates me to do it. What you would know is what argument I raise...if you'd ever address it. Throwing mud is sooo much easier than thinking.

We all had those arguments when we were adolescents, here they were refuted in like 2 minutes.

Repeating them 20000 times anyway.. you really must hope that God does somehow count points anyway