Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:31 pm No..."as you suppose." Not "as we all know." The majority of people still believe morality is objective....

as do you, if you think " making self-serving shit up" ought to be classified as "a morally disgusting practice."

See? You can't even keep your own story straight

Ought I not to think it is? You seem to think I ought not...

Essentially, that is correct. For "morality" can definitionally never be solipsistic, since it always implies an appeal for agreement from others. After all, what does the statement "I'm a moral person" mean, if you are not expecting any other person ever to have to agree with you about that? For then your claim reduces to nothing more than "I choose..." or "I do not choose." And being a subjectivist, you have to assume that no other person has to agree with your choice or approve of it.

That's not moral, and not immoral (unless morality IS objective, in which case it is immoral). But definitionally, it's amoral...meaning, "devoid of any moral status or content."

So subjectivism is inherently amoral at least, immoral at worst.

There you go again. You can't stop being an objectivist for even one message.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:51 pm You can whine and squeal all you want, but the civilized world has already decided to do away with the self-serving evils of moral objectivism. Because overall that's the *morally right choice.

*in your opinion

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:03 pm You can whine and squeal all you want,

Is it wrong to do so? Moralizing.

...but the civilized world...

Is "civilized" a term of moral approval? Are you trying to make Henry ashamed of being "uncivilized"? More moralizing.

...has already decided to do away

So your assumption has to be that the "civilized" world's consensus is right? More moralizing.

... with the self-serving

Self-serving is wrong, you say? Moralizing.

evils of

Moralizing.

... moral objectivism. Because overall that's the morally right choice.

Definitely an attempt at objective moral condemnation of Henry's view.

Hmmm...seems to be a fair whack of moralizing going on. But since you don't mean any of it is objectively justified, nobody really has to agree with any of it. But I'll just bet you're not happy with that...

I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, but rather of falling into the common subjectivist self-defeating patterns of invoking moral ire while denying that objective grounds exist for moral ire.

Don't feel bad. Moral subjectivism is something nobody can practice, no matter how hard they try. It is, in fact, an oxymoron.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:07 pm Obviously by we, I meant people with somewhat functioning brains.

...you may not be aware that it's possible for multiple people to share an opinion.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:12 pm Dude you are completely burying yourself. You are making it crystal clear that you can't process a non-objective worldview.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:18 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:07 pm Obviously by we, I meant people with somewhat functioning brains.

Yes, yes...nobody who rationally disagrees with you has a "functioning brain." We get it.

...you may not be aware that it's possible for multiple people to share an opinion.

They can...by accident.

But if subjectivism is true, it only happens accidentally, and not as a result of any reasons, legitimations, evidence or other objective stuff. So it has to be mere coincidence, and not praiseworthy at all since it lacks any objective basis.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:20 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:12 pm Dude you are completely burying yourself. You are making it crystal clear that you can't process a non-objective worldview.

I think we can safely call this "projection."

If that wonderful brain of yours is functioning, then you can see that subjectivism cannot be made rational. You can't even find a way to speak as if it were true, but keep moralizing.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:25 pm So here on Earth we, the "humans", have this ability where we are able to communicate views.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:30 pm Your argument boils down to: subjectivity cannot be stated objectively, therefore it's self-refuting.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:31 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:25 pm So here on Earth we, the "humans", have this ability where we are able to communicate views.

But apparently, no moral ones for which any objective basis of agreement can ever exist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:32 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:30 pm Your argument boils down to: subjectivity cannot be stated objectively, therefore it's self-refuting.

No. It boils down to "Subjectivists don't get to make objective moral claims."

At least, not if they still want to be moral subjectivists.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:36 pm We communicate those all the time too. Our planet is awesome like that.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:09 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:51 pm You can whine and squeal all you want, but the civilized world has already decided to do away with the self-serving evils of moral objectivism. Because overall that's the *morally right choice.

*in your opinion

Not juts my opinion, and our opinion beats yours

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:03 pm You can whine and squeal all you want,

Is it wrong to do so? Moralizing.

...but the civilized world...

Is "civilized" a term of moral approval? Are you trying to make Henry ashamed of being "uncivilized"? More moralizing.

...has already decided to do away

So your assumption has to be that the "civilized" world's consensus is right? More moralizing.

... with the self-serving

Self-serving is wrong, you say? Moralizing.

evils of

Moralizing.

... moral objectivism. Because overall that's the morally right choice.

Definitely an attempt at objective moral condemnation of Henry's view.

Hmmm...seems to be a fair whack of moralizing going on. But since you don't mean any of it is objectively justified, nobody really has to agree with any of it. But I'll just bet you're not happy with that...

I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, but rather of falling into the common subjectivist self-defeating patterns of invoking moral ire while denying that objective grounds exist for moral ire.

Don't feel bad. Moral subjectivism is something nobody can practice, no matter how hard they try. It is, in fact, an oxymoron.

Dude you are completely burying yourself. You are making it crystal clear that you can't process a non-objective worldview.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:21 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:12 pm You are making it crystal clear that you can't process a non-objective worldview.

no one can...that's why anti-realists keep defaultin' to speakin', writin', thinkin' like realists...they are realists