Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:58 pm It is still not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort.

Again...nothing to do with comfort. Everything to do with the fact that subjectivism can't say one coherent thing about morality.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:02 pm You are conflating the measurement of objective traits with the inherent nature of the traits themselves.

The "inherent nature of..." is the language of the onto-theological religion.

You started off by insisting that failure to agree on the measurement result implies non-factuality.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:10 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:58 pm It is still not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort.

Again...nothing to do with comfort. Everything to do with the fact that subjectivism can't say one coherent thing about morality.

Subjectivism can say something about morality, namely it says that it is not objective.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:10 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:58 pm It is still not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort.

Again...nothing to do with comfort. Everything to do with the fact that subjectivism can't say one coherent thing about morality.

Subjectivism can say something about morality, namely it says that it is not objective.

"Not objective" means "subjective." So all that Subjectivism can say about morality is that it is what subjectivism says it is...without having to say what it is.

But it still can't tell you even one thing that is actually moral.

And it can't even say you're objectively wrong if you disbelieve in moral subjectivism. So it really is totally uninformative.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:10 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:58 pm It is still not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort.

Again...nothing to do with comfort. Everything to do with the fact that subjectivism can't say one coherent thing about morality.

Subjectivism can say something about morality, namely it says that it is not objective.

Is "subjectivism" objectively right about that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:27 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:10 pm
Again...nothing to do with comfort. Everything to do with the fact that subjectivism can't say one coherent thing about morality.

Subjectivism can say something about morality, namely it says that it is not objective.

"Not objective" means "subjective." So all that Subjectivism can say about morality is that it is what subjectivism says it is...without having to say what it is.

But it still can't tell you even one thing that is actually moral.

And it can't even say you're objectively wrong if you disbelieve in moral subjectivism. So it really is totally uninformative.

There's no shape of an argument in that screed. What are you trying to actually say?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:34 pm What are you trying to actually say?

That's what I keep asking moral subjectivists!

What are you trying to say when you talk about "dishonesty?

Honesty and dishonesty are moral distinctions and by your own admission they aren't objectively true...

If you aren't going to speak truthful things sit down and shut the fuck up.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:34 pm There's no shape of an argument in that screed. What are you trying to actually say?

There's no content in your objection.

Sorry...just not interested in making it any simpler for you. And now this exchange is well below the bar of intellectual stimulation, even at its lowest. So you'll just have to figure it out on your own.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:50 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:34 pm There's no shape of an argument in that screed. What are you trying to actually say?

There's no content in your objection.

Sorry...just not interested in making it any simpler for you. And now this exchange is well below the bar of intellectual stimulation, even at its lowest. So you'll just have to figure it out on your own.

Don't be silly. You were complaining that "subjectivism can't say one coherent thing about morality", I gave you one thing, so you moved the goalposts to say "So all that Subjectivism can say about morality is....."

You endlessly demand this objective moral precept from subjectivism which is blatant question begging. And you accuse others of silence and evasion when they don't take that demand seriously. You have never given a coherent reason why the thing that is said about morality must be a timeless objective truth, that's just this thing that you want.

And you segued meaninglessly into some ramble that subjectivism can't even say objectivism is untrue. That's absurd, just as objectivism cannot prove the reverse, for the simple reason that the argument to support some particular branch of reason would come from outside.... duh.

So arrange your argument into coherence if you can.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:59 pm Don't be silly. You were complaining that "subjectivism can't say one coherent thing about morality", I gave you one thing

You did give him one thing, but you didn't give him one coherent thing.

What you gave him was a question-begging conclusion. Is question-begging not considered a logical fallacy; and therefore incoherent by subjectivists?

I guess anything passes for "logical" and "coherent" when there are no objective standards of right and wrong...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:18 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:02 pm You are conflating the measurement of objective traits with the inherent nature of the traits themselves.

You started off by insisting that failure to agree on the measurement result implies non-factuality.

Actually I was addressing the opinion that agreement on a supposedly subjective descriptor such as "red" equates to a factual description independent of opinion. When in reality, since there is no agreement on that descriptor (some would use "red" others "scarlet" still others "ruby"), that your example does, in fact include opinion.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:30 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:18 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:02 pm You are conflating the measurement of objective traits with the inherent nature of the traits themselves.

You started off by insisting that failure to agree on the measurement result implies non-factuality.

Actually I was addressing the opinion that agreement on a supposedly subjective descriptor such as "red" equates to a factual description independent of opinion. When in reality, since there is no agreement on that descriptor (some would use "red" others "scarlet" still others "ruby"), that your example does, in fact include opinion.

That's what I said. I just used less words.

You are claiming that lack of agreement on the descriptor implies non-factuality.
You are further implying that unanimous agreement on the descriptor is a necessary condition for factuality.

Whether the same person uses the same descriptor for the same color. Every. Single. Time. (what we call test-retest reliability in statistics) is immaterial to you.

So if one measurement instrument weighs an apple at 100 grams and another one weighs it at 99.9999999999999999999999 grams there's no agreement on the descriptor so as far as you are concerned it is NOT a fact that the apple weighs 100 grams.

Some further implications which necessarily follows your claim. Should I wish to render any description non-factual I simply have to break rank and use a different descriptor to what's commonly agreed to.

So all that's necessary for the circumference of Earth to become non-factual is to replace the descriptor "12 742 km" kilometers with the descriptor "7 917,5 miles" and factuality is lost.

Is this how you wish to be understood? As an idiotic nitpicker?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:50 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:34 pm There's no shape of an argument in that screed. What are you trying to actually say?

There's no content in your objection.

Sorry...just not interested in making it any simpler for you. And now this exchange is well below the bar of intellectual stimulation, even at its lowest. So you'll just have to figure it out on your own.

Don't be silly.

That's my goal.

It's like the old saying, "Arguing with a troll is like wrestling with a pig: you both get up dirty, but the pig enjoys it."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 3:00 pmAny particular person will have, at any given time, only part of that total data set, it's true. But there's a very great difference between accepting the total data set available to one, and pre-selecting out (on the basis of nothing but antipathy to God) only those data that do not seem to contradict Atheism.

You say:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 04, 2023 2:18 pmI think that for somebody possessing my data set, it's more than strong enough; it's conclusive.

As an example of 'any particular person' you too have only part of the total data set. Given that the data available to you is conclusive, what data can you bring to my attention that will persuade me likewise?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 8:06 am As an example of 'any particular person' you too have only part of the total data set. Given that the data available to you is conclusive, what data can you bring to my attention that will persuade me likewise?

That's effectively asking "what data am I missing?"

Present all your available data and he'll tell you.