Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, he did. He was created innocent but free. He used his freedom to fall. So now he has a fallen nature. That's the Genesis picture.

Well, let's look at this. God created an innocent being. That is his or her nature. Innocent. But then this innocent being has an urge to do the wrong thing.

There is no mention of "urges." It calls it "an act of disobedience." It wasn't a magical fruit that caused the problem; it was the decision of a free person to do the wrong thing, when he/she was perfectly capable of doing the right thing. Milton put it this way: that mankind was created "sufficient to have stood, but free to fall." Man was "sufficient to have stood," in that he could have refused; but he was "free to fall," because having "freedom" automatically entails that one has the potential to make an alternate choice.

It is. But you've already said that you don't believe in objective right and wrong, so for you, there's no such thing as "sin."

Although I do think "sin" is a stupid word, along with "evil", I do believe in right and wrong,..

Well, you've already said elsewhere that they have no objective reality, so it's hard to see how you manage that. But if you think you can explain, I'll listen.

There's a flip side to this.

So you can't explain? You can only change the topic?

I was hoping you'd have some cogent explanation of how you can deny objective moral facts can exist, but then still believe in "right and wrong." But you're not going to tell me how you do that?

[Immanuel Can]

Here you are saying that we must have an endless torture option or we aren't free.

Not at all. I've never said those words.

What I have said is that you have to have the option of doing or declining to do something, or of choosing or rejecting between no less than two options. Otherwise you have no freedom. And that's analytically true: a person who is only given one 'option' really has no "option" at all; she has to do whatever she has to do.

As for "endless torture," all that is is the natural consequence of a very bad choice. When one rejects the Source of all that is good, what one gets is all that is bad. That, too, is analytically obvious.

There is no reason to treat a choice as permanent.

Well, then, his choice is not being honoured. He's not being taken seriously, and given the actual power to determine his own disposition.

A deity could allow people to change their minds or hearts.

That's exactly what God does...now. But He won't do it forever, because at some point, that choice of where we wish to dispose ourselves must be honoured, or we aren't really having that freedom.

This also goes for number two. Even earthly fathers, not all but many, manage to allow their sons and daughters to reject them and then come back later.

As God does: remember the parable of The Prodigal Son? But not forever.

Unfortunately, God is also, as the Bible says, "the Giver of all good gifts." (James) With the expulsion of God from the rebel's universe, so go all good gifts...life, light, love, joy, peace, meaning, rightness, purity, health, liberty...for one who has rejected God, nothing good is left -- for all goods are derived from our relationship with the Great Source of Good, God Himself.

...you think God chose, restricting his own freedom...

It's not a "restriction." God is the only Entity in the universe who has the ultimate expression of freedom; which is that He, alone, of all beings, is able always to do that which is harmonious with His own nature, and never anything that is not. That God chooses to give man freedom and self-determination as to his ultimate relationship is harmonious with exactly who God is, a God who is about genuine relationship with free beings.

Certainly separation from God is a large facet of hell,

It's really the whole thing. The physical descriptors, such as flames, darkness, etc. are, I think the only ways God can describe in language that ordinary people can understand the kind and degree of undesirablility of the state of those who reject God. And He does so in order to make it very clear to ordinary people that it is something they should not want to choose.

But if they do, He still honours their choice and affirms their ultimate freedom to have what they choose.

So God would prefer that that should not be, either. But free will entails it, and that result is nothing other than God giving full respect to the free will of a free individual, without which, relationship would be logically impossible anyway.

Nah, free will could lead to other options,

It's analytically impossible. One cannot have genuine relationship with an entity that has no choice, freedom, volition or identity.

Those who wish to be forever without God get their desire, just as Lewis said. And we can't cry about getting exactly what we bargained to get. That's the price of being a free individual.

So, you think Harbal knows that he will be tortured for all eternity and that God actually does exist.

You'll have to ask him. I suspect he'll say he believes none of this.

Finally, as for the things I may not address here, not all comments are sufficiently relevant, interesting or challenging to deserve comment. Some are just throw-away snark by this person or that person, and others only concern questions too shallow and obvious to be deserving of any serious treatment. When the answer to something is so obvious that multiple books have already dealt with it, for example, I may not bother to deal with it at all. My time here has value to me, but is limited.

If there is something that I have passed over that you really consider a serious challenge, feel free to repeat it; and if you're right, I'll address it. It's possible I sometimes overlook a good point. But it's not common, I would say. Usually, when I don't react to something it's only because it wasn't up the level of being worth my reaction.

[Harbal]

By whom?

By those who have been hurt by my wrong doing, and by myself, for not living up to the standards I expect of myself, or at least should expect.

Explain that. Given that you believe in moral subjectivism, how can anything be "wrong in its own right"?

Like I said, if you don't understand,

What I'm thinking is that, in this case, it seems you don't understand your own idea. If something is not objective, it is entirely optional whether one chooses to believe in it or not,

I believe in my own morality in the sense that I know it exists, but its existence is not why I am motivated to act on it; I follow it because I want to. I presume we both want to do the right think. You seem to think that by doing what you believe God wants of you, you are doing the right thing. Well I think that to follow my conscience is doing the right thing. I suppose I could try to ignore it, but why would I do that when I prefer to listen to it?

and one is no worse or better for believing it or not.

But I would feel worse for not behaving in accordance with my moral sense, and I would think myself worse.

So there is no such thing as "subjective human decency." The very word "decency" implies an objective, common standard by which "decent" can be assessessed.

The word, "decency", doesn't imply an objective, common standard by which "decent" can be assessed to me. I have my own ideas about what is decent human behaviour, and am guided by them. I find it alarming that you don't have such ideas.

I believe in right and wrong because I experience them as subjective perceptions.

A "subjective perception" not only has no obligatory weight for anybody else, it doesn't even have any for you.

My sense of morality has no obligatory weight for anyone else, that is correct, just as God's moral dictates have no obligatory weight for me. I don't know why you presume to know how much obligatory weight my moral sense exerts on me.

Because it will change as often and with as little resistance as your own "subjective" feelings change.

But they very rarely do change, and when they have, it has usually been for the better.

Interesting, isn't it, how even the most ardently theoretical subjectivist can't keep faith with his own theory?

I wouldn't call myself an ardently theoretical subjectivist, I merely have the rational capability to work out that the idea of objective moral facts is a nonsense. I don't have a theory to keep faith with, I just have a sense of right and wrong.

They all lapse into moral condemnations, approvals, justifications, criticisms, and whatnot, just as soon as they've finished asserting that they believe in subjectivism. You're being an illustration of that very point, right now.

I think I'm just an illustration of someone with his own sense of moral right and wrong, who tries to live by it. I feel sure that I'm not a rarity in that respect.

[Immanuel Can]

By those who have been hurt by my wrong doing, and by myself, for not living up to the standards I expect of myself, or at least should expect.

Like I said, if you don't understand,

What I'm thinking is that, in this case, it seems you don't understand your own idea. If something is not objective, it is entirely optional whether one chooses to believe in it or not,

I believe in my own morality in the sense that I know it exists,

"Exists"? It "exists" only as a fancy in your head, if you're a subjectivist. So it might be objectively true to say you have a fancy in your head, but that doesn't even remotely imply that the content of that fancy is real or obligatory.

I presume we both want to do the right think.

I think most people do. What's different is that only some people have a logical basis for doing the right thing, especially when the wrong thing turns out to be easier or more advantageous.

I think that to follow my conscience is doing the right thing.

Why? What makes it reliable? You can't believe it's telling you anything real or obligatory, if you're a subjectivist.

and one is no worse or better for believing it or not.

But I would feel worse for not behaving in accordance with my moral sense, and I would think myself worse.

You should be able to get over that, if the advantages are great enough.

So there is no such thing as "subjective human decency." The very word "decency" implies an objective, common standard by which "decent" can be assessessed.

The word, "decency", doesn't imply an objective, common standard by which "decent" can be assessed to me.

It must do. You tried to apply it to me. If it doesn't even apply to you, why should anybody else care whether or not you call them "decent"?

You're not thinking clearly about this. A subjectivist has no warrant at all for passing even one moral judgment about the decency or anything else about another person. But you do. Which means you're not being a true subjectivist. You're trying to smuggle back in a moral condemnation that has no meaning at all if it's not take objectively.

I believe in right and wrong because I experience them as subjective perceptions.

A "subjective perception" not only has no obligatory weight for anybody else, it doesn't even have any for you.

I don't know why you presume to know how much obligatory weight my moral sense exerts on me.

Logic. There is no logical reason for you to take your moral sense seriously. Nothing about it is objective, you say. It's a delusion. Get over it, I guess.

Because it will change as often and with as little resistance as your own "subjective" feelings change.

But they very rarely do change, and when they have, it has usually been for the better.

There's another one!

"For the better." What is "better," and who says? If it's only your personal feeling, then nobody else needs to agree it's "for the better" at all. Even you don't have to think that, because it has no basis in reality. Nothing morally subjective is actually "better."

Interesting, isn't it, how even the most ardently theoretical subjectivist can't keep faith with his own theory?

I wouldn't call myself an ardently theoretical subjectivist, I merely have the rational capability to work out that the idea of objective moral facts is a nonsense. I don't have a theory to keep faith with, I just have a sense of right and wrong.

A lovely demonstration of the truth of what I said.

You both think you can believe anything or nothing at all, regarding morality, and that we ought to agree that your sense indicates "right and wrong," as if they were objective realities.

They all lapse into moral condemnations, approvals, justifications, criticisms, and whatnot, just as soon as they've finished asserting that they believe in subjectivism. You're being an illustration of that very point, right now.

I think I'm just an illustration of someone with his own sense of moral right and wrong, who tries to live by it.

If that were the limit, you would not have called your own views "for the better," and would not have charged anybody with a lack of "decency." Both require an objective standard.

But you do.

QED.

[Harbal]

What I'm thinking is that, in this case, it seems you don't understand your own idea. If something is not objective, it is entirely optional whether one chooses to believe in it or not,

I believe in my own morality in the sense that I know it exists,

"Exists"? It "exists" only as a fancy in your head, if you're a subjectivist.

Lot's of fancies exist in my head, but I wouldn't describe my sense of morality as one of them.

So it might be objectively true to say you have a fancy in your head, but that doesn't even remotely imply that the content of that fancy is real or obligatory.

No, it doesn't. It is my moral sense that I consider obligatory.

I presume we both want to do the right think.

I think most people do. What's different is that only some people have a logical basis for doing the right thing, especially when the wrong thing turns out to be easier or more advantageous.

Then perhaps you should try to recognise that there is a time and place for logic, and not try to inject it into your moral behaviour. That might have worked for Mr. Spock, but you are not a Vulcan.

I think that to follow my conscience is doing the right thing.

Why? What makes it reliable? You can't believe it's telling you anything real or obligatory, if you're a subjectivist.

There you go again, telling me what I am, and am not, able to believe. And that's a bit rich coming from a man who believes the Bible is the literal truth.

But I would feel worse for not behaving in accordance with my moral sense, and I would think myself worse.

You should be able to get over that, if the advantages are great enough.

I no doubt would if I were that kind of person, but I'm not, and I wouldn't want to be.

The word, "decency", doesn't imply an objective, common standard by which "decent" can be assessed to me.

It must do. You tried to apply it to me. If it doesn't even apply to you, why should anybody else care whether or not you call them "decent"?

They may or may not care, but any normal person would know that I was just expressing my opinion of them.

You're not thinking clearly about this. A subjectivist has no warrant at all for passing even one moral judgment about the decency or anything else about another person.

I'm not a policeman; I don't need a warrant.

But you do. Which means you're not being a true subjectivist. You're trying to smuggle back in a moral condemnation that has no meaning at all if it's not take objectively.

I'm not trying to smuggle anything. When I pass a moral judgement, I make no secret of the fact that it is solely my own moral judgement.

I don't know why you presume to know how much obligatory weight my moral sense exerts on me.

Logic. There is no logical reason for you to take your moral sense seriously.

That is correct to some extent, as my overriding reason is emotional.

But they very rarely do change, and when they have, it has usually been for the better.

There's another one!

"For the better." What is "better," and who says?

I say.

If it's only your personal feeling, then nobody else needs to agree it's "for the better" at all.

How fortunate, then, that I don't require their agreement.

Even you don't have to think that, because it has no basis in reality. Nothing morally subjective is actually "better."

Actually, the word, "better", is an excellent example of a purely relative term. And what I don't have to think is irrelevant, it's what I do think that matters.

I wouldn't call myself an ardently theoretical subjectivist, I merely have the rational capability to work out that the idea of objective moral facts is a nonsense. I don't have a theory to keep faith with, I just have a sense of right and wrong.

A lovely demonstration of the truth of what I said.

You both think you can believe anything or nothing at all, regarding morality, and that we ought to agree that your sense indicates "right and wrong," as if they were objective realities.

No, I don't think that.

I think I'm just an illustration of someone with his own sense of moral right and wrong, who tries to live by it.

If that were the limit, you would not have called your own views "for the better," and would not have charged anybody with a lack of "decency." Both require an objective standard.

You seem to have arrived at a faulty conclusion. I know of no authority that demands an objective standard by which personal moral views must be measured, that would be absurd.


Stop being a coward. If you think you have an argument in support of objective moral truth, then present it, and give the rest of us an opportunity to explain why it is ridiculous.

[promethean75]

"If you think you have an argument in support of objective moral truth, then present it"

Nooooo.... please, not again! I beg u!

[Harbal]

"If you think you have an argument in support of objective moral truth, then present it"

Nooooo.... please, not again! I beg u!

I do remember the beginnings of one, but I was required to completely renounce my own views on subjective morality before IC was prepared to proceed with it, which I, of course, refused to do, so things never went any further. He has so much confidence in the strength of his argument that all alternatives must be removed from the arena before he dare let it into the ring.

[Immanuel Can]

I believe in my own morality in the sense that I know it exists,

"Exists"? It "exists" only as a fancy in your head, if you're a subjectivist.

Lot's of fancies exist in my head, but I wouldn't describe my sense of morality as one of them.

You should. If it's only subjective, that's all it can ever be.

Are you ready to admit some moral precept is actually objective? If not, you're stuck.

So it might be objectively true to say you have a fancy in your head, but that doesn't even remotely imply that the content of that fancy is real or obligatory.

No, it doesn't. It is my moral sense that I consider obligatory.

But it's not. You only feel like it is. There's nobody and nothing ever to call you to account for what you do. Not even yourself.

I presume we both want to do the right think.

I think most people do. What's different is that only some people have a logical basis for doing the right thing, especially when the wrong thing turns out to be easier or more advantageous.

Then perhaps you should try to recognise that there is a time and place for logic, and not try to inject it into your moral behaviour. That might have worked for Mr. Spock, but you are not a Vulcan.

But if morality is not based in any objective reality, and doesn't have to follow logic, why would you ever believe it -- far less think that anybody should have to agree with you?

I think that to follow my conscience is doing the right thing.

Why? What makes it reliable? You can't believe it's telling you anything real or obligatory, if you're a subjectivist.

There you go again, telling me what I am, and am not, able to believe.

I'm just pointing out what being a sensible person would tell you that you can and can't believe. You don't have to be a sensible person, of course.

The word, "decency", doesn't imply an objective, common standard by which "decent" can be assessed to me.

It must do. You tried to apply it to me. If it doesn't even apply to you, why should anybody else care whether or not you call them "decent"?

They may or may not care, but any normal person would know that I was just expressing my opinion of them.

That opinion, according to you, can't refer to any objective truth. So it cannot be objectively true that somebody who abandons their morality -- far less other people's moralities -- isn't "decent." Once again, you're talking nonsense, then.

You're not thinking clearly about this. A subjectivist has no warrant at all for passing even one moral judgment about the decency or anything else about another person.

I'm not a policeman; I don't need a warrant.

No facts, no truth, no logic, and now no warrant? What does your view of morality have going for it?

But you do. Which means you're not being a true subjectivist. You're trying to smuggle back in a moral condemnation that has no meaning at all if it's not taken objectively.

I'm not trying to smuggle anything. When I pass a moral judgement, I make no secret of the fact that it is solely my own moral judgement.

But it refers to nothing. "Harbal, at this moment, has indecent feelings." Who needs to care?

I don't know why you presume to know how much obligatory weight my moral sense exerts on me.

Logic. There is no logical reason for you to take your moral sense seriously.

That is correct to some extent, as my overriding reason is emotional.

Well, you're quite an emotional fellow, then...but nobody needs to care, since your emotions apparently refer to nothing at all but the momentary present state of your own innards.

But they very rarely do change, and when they have, it has usually been for the better.

There's another one!

"For the better." What is "better," and who says?

I say.

Nobody cares. There's nothing to make anybody care. By your own account, your judgment of "better" is purely your own viscera.

If it's only your personal feeling, then nobody else needs to agree it's "for the better" at all.

How fortunate, then, that I don't require their agreement.

If you don't, why did you bother declaring it at all? And why did you call the view you imputed to me "not decent" when you know nobody needs to care what you think?

I wouldn't call myself an ardently theoretical subjectivist, I merely have the rational capability to work out that the idea of objective moral facts is a nonsense. I don't have a theory to keep faith with, I just have a sense of right and wrong.

A lovely demonstration of the truth of what I said.

You both think you can believe anything or nothing at all, regarding morality, and that we ought to agree that your sense indicates "right and wrong," as if they were objective realities.

No, I don't think that.

Then you need to stop throwing out morally-approving and morally-condemning terms, as if you expect anybody to agree with them. You don't. So again, you've just been talking nonsense,

If you think you have an argument in support of objective moral truth, then present it, and give the rest of us an opportunity to explain why it is ridiculous.

As soon as you become consistent with your own view, I'll be happy to do that.

[promethean75]

The easiest way round this mess is just to say that the quality 'objective', in the epistemological sense it's being used in arguments such as these, is something that pertains to things with truth values, like statements, and since morality isn't a statement or a theorem, it can't be discussed or described objectively or subjectively (for that matter, but for different reasons).

U can do and be moral or immoral animal by following rules or behaving contrary to expected norms. To say 'this is a subject of ethics, of morality' is only to describe the activity in a certain peculiar way (waving can be an arbitrary act or a meaningful ethical behavior with moral intent), only to say 'this we call moral and that we call immoral'. That is the only objective truth about the case of morality. Value statements describing behaviors as good and bad can't be thought of as being like other objective reports about things in the world, so we shouldn't think of them as true or false. They express something entirely different and function in a language game that, while intersecting with the language of the natural sciences, aren't qualified by any statements from the natural sciences.

It simply isn't true or false that eating your neighbor's kid's gerbil is wrong in the same way any other indicative statement about the world is true or false.

Not to say eating the gerbil wouldn't piss someone off or give u indigestion. Only to say that the fact that it is considered wrong is a fact with nothing of the veracity of any other kind of predicate statement and whether or not it is a fact. Think of the verification principle especially here concerning value statements. How do u check the truth that eating the gerbil is wrong. U aks another person if they think it's wrong. They do the same and so on. But what all this time is the thing 'wrong'? What is wrongnessness?

Your confirmation that eating the gerbil is wrong comes in the form of seeing a sneer on the face of the other guy or paying a fine for animal cruelty.

But all that means is some people don't want u to eat gerbils. I'm still looking for the empirical quality about this act that can confirm its wrongness in the absence of the sneer and the fine, since those things tell me nothing in any verifiable, objective sense about what 'wrong' is or means.

Sneer and fine mean 'wrong', 'wrong' means sneer and fine. This is circular af.

[Harbal]

"Exists"? It "exists" only as a fancy in your head, if you're a subjectivist.

Lot's of fancies exist in my head, but I wouldn't describe my sense of morality as one of them.

You should. If it's only subjective, that's all it can ever be.

Are you ready to admit some moral precept is actually objective? If not, you're stuck.

So it might be objectively true to say you have a fancy in your head, but that doesn't even remotely imply that the content of that fancy is real or obligatory.

No, it doesn't. It is my moral sense that I consider obligatory.

But it's not. You only feel like it is. There's nobody and nothing ever to call you to account for what you do. Not even yourself.

I think most people do. What's different is that only some people have a logical basis for doing the right thing, especially when the wrong thing turns out to be easier or more advantageous.

Then perhaps you should try to recognise that there is a time and place for logic, and not try to inject it into your moral behaviour. That might have worked for Mr. Spock, but you are not a Vulcan.

But if morality is not based in any objective reality, and doesn't have to follow logic, why would you ever believe it -- far less think that anybody should have to agree with you?

Why? What makes it reliable? You can't believe it's telling you anything real or obligatory, if you're a subjectivist.

There you go again, telling me what I am, and am not, able to believe.

I'm just pointing out what being a sensible person would tell you that you can and can't believe. You don't have to be a sensible person, of course.

It must do. You tried to apply it to me. If it doesn't even apply to you, why should anybody else care whether or not you call them "decent"?

They may or may not care, but any normal person would know that I was just expressing my opinion of them.

That opinion, according to you, can't refer to any objective truth. So it cannot be objectively true that somebody who abandons their morality -- far less other people's moralities -- isn't "decent." Once again, you're talking nonsense, then.

You're not thinking clearly about this. A subjectivist has no warrant at all for passing even one moral judgment about the decency or anything else about another person.

I'm not a policeman; I don't need a warrant.

No facts, no truth, no logic, and now no warrant? What does your view of morality have going for it?

But you do. Which means you're not being a true subjectivist. You're trying to smuggle back in a moral condemnation that has no meaning at all if it's not taken objectively.

I'm not trying to smuggle anything. When I pass a moral judgement, I make no secret of the fact that it is solely my own moral judgement.

But it refers to nothing. "Harbal, at this moment, has indecent feelings." Who needs to care?

Logic. There is no logical reason for you to take your moral sense seriously.

That is correct to some extent, as my overriding reason is emotional.

Well, you're quite an emotional fellow, then...but nobody needs to care, since your emotions apparently refer to nothing at all but the momentary present state of your own innards.

There's another one!

"For the better." What is "better," and who says?

I say.

Nobody cares. There's nothing to make anybody care. By your own account, your judgment of "better" is purely your own viscera.

If it's only your personal feeling, then nobody else needs to agree it's "for the better" at all.

How fortunate, then, that I don't require their agreement.

If you don't, why did you bother declaring it at all? And why did you call the view you imputed to me "not decent" when you know nobody needs to care what you think?

A lovely demonstration of the truth of what I said.

You both think you can believe anything or nothing at all, regarding morality, and that we ought to agree that your sense indicates "right and wrong," as if they were objective realities.

No, I don't think that.

Then you need to stop throwing out morally-approving and morally-condemning terms, as if you expect anybody to agree with them. You don't. So again, you've just been talking nonsense,

I'm not going through it all again, and I stand by everything I've said so far.

If you think you have an argument in support of objective moral truth, then present it, and give the rest of us an opportunity to explain why it is ridiculous.

As soon as you become consistent with your own view, I'll be happy to do that.

So, again, for the umpteenth time, you have me accounting for my views on the subjectivity of morality, while you dismiss everything I say with irrelevant points and deliberate misrepresentations of my explanations. Yet you, yourself, do not have the courage to subject yourself to the same process without first laying down terms and conditions that amount to my conceding that your account of how there is objective moral truth is the only plausible one. In other words, you are insisting on a declaration that you must be right before you will even start. And what I find truly remarkable, is that you pull all these stunts without the slightest embarrassment.

[Age]

Yes, it is just a story, but not about evolution, as I understand it.

This is because you have only ever been shown, and taught, the misinterpreted version.

If you say so, but I'm not really interested in what the story is about, so it doesn't really matter.

you said and claimed, 'Only a fool would consider Genesis a factual account of anything.'

I was just explaining to the readers here, and you also maybe, that only a "fool" would consider the misinterpreted version of 'that story' as a factual account of anything.

Which may well have meant that only the 'wise' see what the intended version of 'that story' was actually accounting for. But, this does not really matter, to you, right?

Why did you quote all the above, but with no comment about any of it?

I do this with some posts. I just 'hit' the quote button, and then just respond to parts of the post, and then just 'hit' the submit button.

I have no real reason 'why' I do this. Other than maybe because I just do not want to respond to absolutely every thing in a post.

Well it causes confusion, if you are interested, or at least it causes me confusion.

I am not sure how doing this could cause you any real confusion. But, each to their own as they say.

And, now that you know why I do what I do here, and/or know why I do not do what I do not here, this knowledge will not cause you as much confusion, for you.

[Harbal]

This is because you have only ever been shown, and taught, the misinterpreted version.

If you say so, but I'm not really interested in what the story is about, so it doesn't really matter.

you said and claimed, 'Only a fool would consider Genesis a factual account of anything.'

I was just explaining to the readers here, and you also maybe, that only a "fool" would consider the misinterpreted version of 'that story' as a factual account of anything.

Which may well have meant that only the 'wise' see what the intended version of 'that story' was actually accounting for. But, this does not really matter, to you, right?

Yes, that's right, it doesn't matter to me.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not going through it all again, and I stand by everything I've said so far.

Well, that's unfortunate. You've never been able to explain why your subjective "moral feeling" should be taken seriously by anybody at all. And you continue to waffle between morally-laden demands that others agree with you, while simultaneously insisting they're only your personal feeling-of-the-moment, and no more.

Nobody can make sense of that contradiction. So I'm not surprised you've given up.

If you think you have an argument in support of objective moral truth, then present it, and give the rest of us an opportunity to explain why it is ridiculous.

As soon as you become consistent with your own view, I'll be happy to do that.

So, again, for the umpteenth time, you have me accounting for my views on the subjectivity of morality,

Of course I do.

We're in a philosophy forum here, and what you've been claiming makes no rational sense to anybody. So all anybody can do is ask questions, and trust that the speaker has some deeper understanding nobody else has yet thought of. It's maybe an unduly charitable thing to do -- maybe the right thing is simply to call it "rubbish" without further hesitation -- nevertheless, I think you're owed a chance to explain.

So you've had your chance. And it seems you don't have some secret gnosis about how moral subjectivism can be rendered rational. That's not terribly surprising, I suppose. It's probably impossible.

...you are insisting on a declaration that you must be right before you will even start...

Not at all. I'm just insisting that you should probably believe things that can be defended on some rational basis. I'm perfectly happy to stand for my own view of what morality is: but the competition has folded so badly I don't think I'm really going to have to, really. They're already so desperate they're trying to "play my objectivist game," even while pretending to believe subjectivism. You can't resist using all kind of objective-value-assuming terms, because if you don't, you can't even reasonably object to anything your critics might say or do.

And here, you've provided yet another good example. Your closing "indictment" of my alleged behaviour, even were it completely right (and, of course, it's not: we had a long conversation about this on another thread), simply can't be taken seriously without some explanation of why my "dismissing" (if that's what I were to do) was wrong, or why it was wrong to be "irrelevant," or to "deliberately misrepresent," or to lack "courage," or why I should have "embarassment"...All these things require me to share your moral assessment.

But you then insist I don't have to share your moral assessment -- and, in fact, that nobody owes it to you -- because it's purely subjective.

Does it not even bother you that you can't live consistently with your own subjectivism?

[Age]

Why did you use the 'You did manage to ...' words here? What are you trying to imply here, exactly?

Well, for example, with the formatting - frequent capilization of all letters - this was pointed out as a problem for a long time by a pretty large number of people, for a small forum. This met resistance, and then you changed.

Yes, this was fully understood at the very beginning when you posters here started complaining and whinging about it. But, please just get on to answering and clarifying the actual clarifying question I asked you here.

If you would do this, sometimes and a lot more frequently, then our discussions would become far more concise, and succinct.

Manage to covers the range of efforts you get to improvement.

1. 'Improvement' is very relative.

2. I just 'chose' to do some thing different.

3. There was no effort nor inability to do some thing different here. So, your use of the words 'manage to' were quite Incorrect, as well as completely unnecessary. They also could have misled others away from what the actual Truth was, and still is. But, then again, you do have a habit of frequently doing this here.

I wouldn't say I was implying anything but rather saying it.

Well then what you said was Wrong, and misleading.

But you have seemed utterly resistant to considering the criticisms I have had regarding the general way you communicate.

Simply because 'your criticisms' are not helping 'me'.

I understood this was your position.

Yet, you keep bringing it up here.

I use the 'general way I communicate' for specific and purposes reasons. And, I certainly do not have to change them because of one of you, or a few of you, or even all of you want me to or expect me to.

Obviously.

And I have given specific examples, and even alternative ways of communicating.

you can say and claim this.

And, considering 'the way' that you actually mis/communicate here I will wait for better advice, thanks.

You're welcome.

I have justified my choices and you surely have noticed how most people react not mainly to the content of your communication but to the way you communicate and what you expect to others to do and not do for communication to be effective.

That you, supposedly, 'justified' your choices is 'one thing', which a full stop would have been better.

I don't understand that sentence, even trying a few different meanings of 'full stop.'

It would make perfect sense, and you would fully understand, if you just did things differently here. But, you have 'your way' of communicating, which you obviously are happy with and do not want to change at all. Even though 'your way' is leading to a lot of miscommunication here.

Then your next claim here is 'another thing', which would have been much better expressed if expressed separately.

Perhaps you're giving me grammar advice here, such as to avoid using more than one 'and' the way I did. That's good advice, if that's what you meant.

If your way of communicating was effective with others, even a small group, peachy, but generally speaking, at least here, it leads to people dismissing you, mainly, or getting into arguments with you and openly telling you they find the process irritating or pointless.

And, you seem to keep forgetting, or not able to comprehend and understand, that you people are not, necessarily, my targeted audience.

I remember that. But you said I

am here 'to learn' how-to communicate better, with you human beings.

So, this point of yours was stupid.

Obviously you have, again, completely and utterly missed the point, and again because of the very thing that you habitually have been doing here, which I have pointed out numerous times already.

Just so this becomes absolutely clear, for even someone like you "iwannaplato", I am not here to, necessarily, be understood by you posters here.

Ah, you don't consider having people understand you part of communicating well or better. This explains a lot.

Once again, you assumed some thing to be true, which is actually absolutely False, and then 'proceed on' from your own very False assumption alone.

And, this is, exactly, why these human beings, back in these 'olden days' when this was being written, took so, so long to 'catch up', and understand, as well

I am here 'to learn' how-to communicate better, with you human beings. Which means, I am not necessarily here to be understood by you ones here.

What a stupid way to learn how to communicate better with us human being, not being interested in being understood and not caring about the problems that arise in that very communication you want to get better at. But it's your life.

If 'my way' is 'stupid', to you, then so be it.

I am sure 'the way' of some will always remain 'stupid' to you, also.

The one who stated and claimed, 'That actually the sun does not revolve around the earth', other people thought of as nuts and/or intolerable, as well.

Notice that you are talking about content and I made it clear that I was talking about form. That the problems arise in relation to the way you communicate.

Well, obviously, 'the form', and/or 'the way', 'that one' was also using, was causing what you call 'problems', as well. Otherwise it would not have taken 'that one' so many years and as long as it did to 'get through' to 'you human beings'.

Just maybe if 'that one' took some time to learn how to communicate better, before it set out to explain some thing that could be proved True, then it might not have taken 'that one' so long to be 'heard', and 'understood'.

Also, and surely, 'the way' that 'that one' was expressing its 'ideas/views' were also seen to be 'stupid', to some, as well.

See, if it is 'the content' alone, and you human beings are not accepting and agreeing with, what 'ends or ended up' being the actual Truth anyway, then where is, and what is, the 'actual problem' causing 'the misunderstanding', exactly?

The answer is extremely obvious, by the way.

So, once one learns how to 'breakthrough' 'the barrier', literally, once and for all, then what you see and call 'the problem' here is removed forever more.

Now, obviously most or all of this is also 'going over your head', as some would say here, but, one day, this will be fully understood.

The masses do not like to be informed of things, which go completely against the 'popular belief'. So, me being called nuts, intolerable, or absolutely any other thing imaginable does not effect me at all.

I certaintly agree that many valuable ideas are reacted to this way. But that has little to do with my point. As you yourself said, you are first looking to improve your communication and human beings don't really know what your healing approach is. You just recently said this. So, they are not reacting negatively to your message, yet, but rather your approach to communication. But you don't care because people here aren't your target audience. Which is a stupid way to proceed. Since you consider our reactions to your approach of no relevance they you are not learning how to communicate with any target audience that is not us.

If you say and believe so, then it must be so. Well to you, at least, anyway.

This is where you end up when you contort yourself to avoid things.

Which is 'where', exactly?

Are you under some sort of assumption that I am stuck or am not getting anywhere here?

Also, just maybe I have not so-called 'contorted' "myself" at all here. Just maybe I am actually showing, and proving, here, in this forum, what it is, exactly, that I want to and will be demonstrating and revealing, to my targeted audience.

Also, your other assumption here is completely and utterly False and Wrong, as well.

[Age]

By whom?

By those who have been hurt by my wrong doing, and by myself, for not living up to the standards I expect of myself, or at least should expect.

Explain that. Given that you believe in moral subjectivism, how can anything be "wrong in its own right"?

Like I said, if you don't understand,

What I'm thinking is that, in this case, it seems you don't understand your own idea. If something is not objective, it is entirely optional whether one chooses to believe in it or not, and one is no worse or better for believing it or not.

Well this is obviously completely and utterly False, and Wrong.

So there is no such thing as "subjective human decency." The very word "decency" implies an objective, common standard by which "decent" can be assessessed...and you don't believe anything can ever be objectively "decent," so far as I can tell.

And, the Fact that you cannot provide absolutely any example of some thing, which is, supposedly, 'decent', objectively, means that 'decency' may well not be 'objective' after all. As you obviously, absolutely, believe that it is. But, while you continue to hold the belief that you do here, you will not be able to comprehend and understand this, irrefutable, Fact.

I believe in right and wrong because I experience them as subjective perceptions.

A "subjective perception" not only has no obligatory weight for anybody else, it doesn't even have any for you. Because it will change as often and with as little resistance as your own "subjective" feelings change. And there's no objective anything to resist that.

Interesting, isn't it, how even the most ardently theoretical subjectivist can't keep faith with his own theory?

Some say that is it more interesting that you actually just assumed some thing to be true, and then believed your own made up assumption to be absolutely true.

They all lapse into moral condemnations, approvals, justifications, criticisms, and whatnot, just as soon as they've finished asserting that they believe in subjectivism. You're being an illustration of that very point, right now.

And, the very Fact that you have not been able to provide just one example of a, supposed, 'moral objective' means and proves that what you believe is absolutely true here, may not be true at all.