Not "idiots" -- at least, not in any modern sense, in which it means, "people incapable of reason."Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 4:57 pm I think we all also know why you are trying to eliminate it as even a possibility before you attempt to sell your "objective" morality. You know you don't stand a chance unless you can first somehow convince everybody it is the only possible option. We are not idiots, IC...
You obviously think we are all idiots.
But in the classical sense, what Bloom says about our modern ethos has teeth in that regard: for the word "id + iot" means "one who sees things only from his own perspective; an "id" thinker, or "one who sees things only from the private perspective," which is its meaning in the original Greek, actually.
So I'm trying to say, "It's no good imagining morality can be explained from the 'id' perspective..." meaning from subjectivism.
However unpalatable you find it, I think it's essential that we all realize that the subjectivist refuge is not going to work. But as I said, you still can opt for moral nihilism. But you rejected that already, without considering it further, so I let that go.
Which means that moral subjectivism is, in the classical sense, mere "idiocy," and nihilism is also ruled out, because you don't even want to entertain it. So it's inevitable: we are at objectivism of some kind. And unless you have any good reason for ruling objectivism out, perhaps you're right; perhaps we should consider it.
However, I can still see you're not there. You're still hoping you can save subjectivism, simply by refusing to acknowledge the plain truth of its irrationality.
That's why we're going nowhere: not because I can't go further, but because you refuse even to abandon the unreasonable. Unless we're both dealing in logic, there's no chance of progress. You'll remain a subjectivist, and I'll be an objectivist: and you'll have refused the only method we could employ in common to resolve our differences in view.
So...what now?
