What is a right action?

[Terrapin Station]

Right. Obviously people prefer what they prefer.

Which leaves you with no grounds to claim the betterness of anti-genocide over pro-genocide.

Again, the grounds are subjective. You're saying that subjective grounds are "no grounds." Why?

[Skepdick]

Again, the grounds are subjective. You're saying that subjective grounds are "no grounds." Why?

I am not saying anything like the strawman you are hunting for. Try going for the principle of charity.

To claim that the grounds are subjective is to imply that some subjective grounds are better than other subjective grounds.

But that claim is grounded in subjectivity which could be mistaken in its own "betterness". So the epistemic question remains. How do you know?

[Terrapin Station]

But that claim is grounded in subjectivity which could be mistaken in its own "betterness". So the epistemic question remains. How do you know?

It can't be mistaken, because there's nothing we're matching or failing to match.

The grounds are subjective. It's about subjective preferences.

[Skepdick]

But that claim is grounded in subjectivity which could be mistaken in its own "betterness". So the epistemic question remains. How do you know?

It can't be mistaken, because there's nothing we're matching or failing to match.

The grounds are subjective. It's about subjective preferences.

Look, it's a simple question: On what grounds are you claiming that some subjective grounds are better than other subjective grounds?

[Terrapin Station]

But that claim is grounded in subjectivity which could be mistaken in its own "betterness". So the epistemic question remains. How do you know?

It can't be mistaken, because there's nothing we're matching or failing to match.

The grounds are subjective. It's about subjective preferences.

Look, it's a simple question: On what grounds are you claiming that some subjective grounds are better than other subjective grounds?

On subjective grounds of preference. (Which is also a simple answer that you can't seem to grasp.)

[Skepdick]

It can't be mistaken, because there's nothing we're matching or failing to match.

The grounds are subjective. It's about subjective preferences.

Look, it's a simple question: On what grounds are you claiming that some subjective grounds are better than other subjective grounds?

On subjective grounds of preference.

Are the subjective grounds from which you are claiming that some subjective grounds are better than other subjective grounds the better or worse kind of subjective grounds?

[Terrapin Station]

Look, it's a simple question: On what grounds are you claiming that some subjective grounds are better than other subjective grounds?

On subjective grounds of preference.

Are the subjective grounds from which you are claiming that some subjective grounds are better than other subjective grounds the better or worse kind of subjective grounds?

They're going to be better to the person with the grounds in question. To someone else they might be worse. It's relative to who you're asking obviously.

[Skepdick]

They're going to be better to the person with the grounds in question. To someone else they might be worse. It's relative to who you're asking obviously.

I am asking you. Are your grounds the better or the worse kind of subjective grounds?

[Terrapin Station]

They're going to be better to the person with the grounds in question. To someone else they might be worse. It's relative to who you're asking obviously.

I am asking you. Are your grounds the better or the worse kind of subjective grounds?

Obviously I'm going to think that my own grounds are better, because I'm going to prefer my own. That's the whole gist of preferences, right?

[Skepdick]

Obviously I'm going to think that my own grounds are better, because I'm going to prefer my own. That's the whole gist of preferences, right?

It's the whole gist if you are subjective moralist.

If you are an objective moralist you'd allow for evidentiary falsification of your claim that your preferences are "better".

You know... learning that you are wrong and all that jazz.

[Terrapin Station]

Obviously I'm going to think that my own grounds are better, because I'm going to prefer my own. That's the whole gist of preferences, right?

It's the whole gist if you are subjective moralist.

If you are an objective moralist you'd allow for evidentiary falsification of your claim that your preferences are "better".

You know... learning that you are wrong and all that jazz.

The only thing one can get wrong here is that morality is somehow objective. That can be falsified by the complete lack of evidence of any extramental moral edicts/judgments/etc.

[Skepdick]

That can be falsified by the complete lack of evidence of any extramental moral edicts/judgments/etc.

Errr, lol. What?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Terrapin Station]

That can be falsified by the complete lack of evidence of any extramental moral edicts/judgments/etc.

Errr, lol. What?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yeah it is.

[Terrapin Station]

I hand you a box and I say, "There's a golf ball in this box."

You open the box and there's nothing in it. Which means that there's no golf ball.

That's certainly evidence that there's no golf ball in the box.

[Skepdick]

Yeah it is.

Ok, well. Objectively, you are stupid.