Philosophy Now Forum

Moral subjectivism is just the rejection of moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts. For lack of evidence and valid and sound argument, moral objectivism is irrational - in my opinion.

And since to be rational is to have or seek good, strong reasons for what we do and believe, moral subjectivism can be perfectly rational.

Unable to demonstrate that his team's morally disgusting - but, fortunately, invented - god is the source of moral value - or even that it exists - IC tries to divert attention away from this intellectual and moral failure by arguing that moral subjectivity is irrational or even incoherent.

It isn't.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 12:20 pm Moral subjectivism is just the rejection of moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts.

Moral objectivism is just the relection of moral subjectivism - the claim that there are no moral facts.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 12:20 pm For lack of evidence and valid and sound argument, moral objectivism is irrational - in my opinion.

For being self-defeating by collapsing the notion of "irrational" (there's just your rationality and my rationality) - moral subjectivism is incoherent.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 12:20 pm And since to be rational is to have or seek good, strong reasons for what we do and believe, moral subjectivism can be perfectly rational.

The rational-irrational distinction requires the rejection of moral subjectivism. Under moral subjectivism there's only your rationality and my rationality.

What does a moral subjectivist mean by "irrational"?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 12:20 pm IC tries to divert attention away from this intellectual and moral failure by arguing that moral subjectivity is irrational or even incoherent.

I believe he is being disingenuous in doing that, be we have all come to expect it of him, so no one should be surprised by it. What really is a turn up, and something I wasn't expecting, is his insistence that I admit that what I believe about morality is wrong before he is prepared to describe what he believes.

I mean, talk about stacking the odds.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 12:59 pm I mean, talk about stacking the odds.

What does a moral subjectivist mean by "odds" exactly?

Moral subjectivism amounts to 1=0. True = False. It's so incoherent there isn't even a game to play.

Imagine a game of chess where each player plays by different rules.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 1:19 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 12:59 pm I mean, talk about stacking the odds.

What does a moral subjectivist mean by "odds" exactly?

Moral subjectivism amounts to 1=0. True = False. It's so incoherent there isn't even a game to play.

Imagine a game of chess where each player plays by different rules.

I am imagining it, and I am the player who is trying to play by the standard, generally accepted rules, while my opponent is altering the rules in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone but himself to win the game.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 12:59 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 12:20 pm IC tries to divert attention away from this intellectual and moral failure by arguing that moral subjectivity is irrational or even incoherent.

I believe he is being disingenuous in doing that, be we have all come to expect it of him, so no one should be surprised by it. What really is a turn up, and something I wasn't expecting, is his insistence that I admit that what I believe about morality is wrong before he is prepared to describe what he believes.

I mean, talk about stacking the odds.

The IC moves...

• I already wrote a perfect argument that shows that you are wrong. I hid it somewhere about this forum. You are responsible for finding it. You are just trolling me when you ask for some sort of clue.

• Of course we can answer that question, you and I together, just as soon as you've answered this apparently unrelated other question on terms I find satisfactory. Buckle in, I'm suddenly very hard to please.

• How very dare you insinuate that I lack honesty, obviously this is an informal fallacy committed against some non-argument I wrote, rathar than a truthful observation about my character and habits.....I shall now write "ad hominem" while I think about how cool I would look in sunglasses

• But if you say that a week is composed of 7 days , you must also be saying that you take bloodthirsty delight in the cannibalistic killing of butchers , bakers and also of candlestick makers , and there aren't many candlestick guys left so we should only eat them infrequently if at all . So you can't be saying that. I cannot believe it of you that you would say something so evil as there are 7 days in a week . You must be saying that there are 8 days in the week, and one of them is my secret day that I informed you of earlier in a cryptic post in some other discussion.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 2:04 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 12:59 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 12:20 pm IC tries to divert attention away from this intellectual and moral failure by arguing that moral subjectivity is irrational or even incoherent.

I believe he is being disingenuous in doing that, be we have all come to expect it of him, so no one should be surprised by it. What really is a turn up, and something I wasn't expecting, is his insistence that I admit that what I believe about morality is wrong before he is prepared to describe what he believes.

I mean, talk about stacking the odds.

The IC moves...

• I already wrote a perfect argument that shows that you are wrong. I hid it somewhere about this forum. You are responsible for finding it. You are just trolling me when you ask for some sort of clue.

• Of course we can answer that question, you and I together, just as soon as you've answered this apparently unrelated other question on terms I find satisfactory. Buckle in, I'm suddenly very hard to please.

• How very dare you insinuate that I lack honesty, obviously this is an informal fallacy committed against some non-argument I wrote, rathar than a truthful observation about my character and habits.....I shall now write "ad hominem" while I think about how cool I would look in sunglasses

• But if you say that a week is composed of 7 days , you must also be saying that you take bloodthirsty delight in the cannibalistic killing of butchers , bakers and also of candlestick makers , and there aren't many candlestick guys left so we should only eat them infrequently if at all . So you can't be saying that. I cannot believe it of you that you would say something so evil as there are 7 days in a week . You must be saying that there are 8 days in the week, and one of them is my secret day that I informed you of earlier in a cryptic post in some other discussion.

Yes, I know. He frequently leaves me not knowing whether to laugh or cry, and even after all this time, he still manages to astonish me.

The inner drive for truthfulness is in part based on / constituted by a feeling stemming from the conscience. IC has no conscience so he knows no such inner drive.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 1:59 pm I am imagining it, and I am the player who is trying to play by the standard, generally accepted rules, while my opponent is altering the rules in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone but himself to win the game.

You mean the rules that determine how the game is to be played; the rules that exist and are independent of the players adhering to them?

You mean the objective rules of the game? The same rules you claim are not objective?

Those rules, or?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 6:26 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 1:59 pm I am imagining it, and I am the player who is trying to play by the standard, generally accepted rules, while my opponent is altering the rules in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone but himself to win the game.

You mean the rules that determine how the game is to be played; the rules that exist and are independent of the players adhering to them?

You mean the objective rules of the game? The same rules you claim are not objective?

Those rules, or?

Sorry, no idea what you're talking about.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 6:55 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 6:26 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 1:59 pm I am imagining it, and I am the player who is trying to play by the standard, generally accepted rules, while my opponent is altering the rules in such a way as to make it impossible for anyone but himself to win the game.

You mean the rules that determine how the game is to be played; the rules that exist and are independent of the players adhering to them?

You mean the objective rules of the game? The same rules you claim are not objective?

Those rules, or?

Sorry, no idea what you're talking about.

Exact same thing you are talking about. The rules of the game. Which apparently exist.

So they are necessarily objective.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 7:49 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 6:55 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 6:26 pm
You mean the rules that determine how the game is to be played; the rules that exist and are independent of the players adhering to them?

You mean the objective rules of the game? The same rules you claim are not objective?

Those rules, or?

Sorry, no idea what you're talking about.

Exact same thing you are talking about. The rules of the game. Which apparently exist.

So they are necessarily objective.

Okay.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 7:49 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 6:55 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 6:26 pm
You mean the rules that determine how the game is to be played; the rules that exist and are independent of the players adhering to them?

You mean the objective rules of the game? The same rules you claim are not objective?

Those rules, or?

Sorry, no idea what you're talking about.

Exact same thing you are talking about. The rules of the game. Which apparently exist.

So they are necessarily objective.

You the knower is the only reality behind knowledge and objects, there is no other ''knowing'' outside of this immediate knowing.

So the ''You'' is necessarily an object known inseparable from the instantaneous knowing. You is ( a concept) and is wholly dependant on the subjective / objective (intersubjective) experiencing. The ''Known'' refers to the object of that knowledge.

The two known concepts (knower and known)( subject and object) are one and the same seamless reality, ONE without a second..


While subjective experience can only be known objectively, the experiencer/knower can never experience the objective world directly except as an illusory concept in mind, which is unknown even to itself, except in this conception, an illusion appearing real.


.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 8:06 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 7:49 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 6:55 pm

Sorry, no idea what you're talking about.

Exact same thing you are talking about. The rules of the game. Which apparently exist.

So they are necessarily objective.

You the knower is the only reality behind knowledge and objects, there is no other ''knowing'' outside of this immediate knowing.

So the ''You'' is necessarily an object known inseparable from the instantaneous knowing. You is ( a concept) and is wholly dependant on the subjective / objective (intersubjective) experiencing. The ''Known'' refers to the object of that knowledge.

The two known concepts (knower and known)( subject and object) are one and the same seamless reality, ONE without a second..


While subjective experience can only be known objectively, the experiencer/knower can never experience the objective world directly except as an illusory concept in mind, which is unknown even to itself, except in this conception, an illusion appearing real.

Sometimes I kick my turntable when it gets stuck. I wonder if it'll work with you.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 8:12 am Sometimes I kick my turntable when it gets stuck. I wonder if it'll work with you.

To know the experience that knowledge is actual, requires a mind/ a knower. That's the objective world experienced subjectively.