Immanuel Cant wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 11:50 pm If somebody says, "The reason you shouldn't murder is that murder is intrinsically, objectively, always wrong," that's one kind of statement. But subjectivism requires any honest subjectivist to say only this: "Murder feels wrong to me...for the moment. So I'm hoping it feels wrong to you. But if it doesn't, I'm not more right than you are, and have no business condemning your murders."
This is how Mr. Cant "pins" the moral subjectivists to the mat. If only "in his head".
But what he avoids over and again [as some point out] is that the Christians are more or less in the same boat.
Okay, they have the Bible to fall back on in regard to murder...to the killing of other human beings.
But until they are able to demonstrate that the Christian God is the one and the only moral font mere mortals can -- must -- take with them all the way to the grave...to immortality and salvation...their God remains just one of many. And then there are all of the many folks who embrace one or another secular/ideological/philosophical equivalent of religion. They too are just as convinced that their own Isms provide them with One True Path to the objective truth.
Then back again to those in Israel and the Gaza Strip who sanction killing the infidels because this is deemed to be "intrinsically, objectively, always"
right. Even when in the name of the same God.
Immanuel Cant wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 11:50 pm Would any subjectivist articulate his view so frankly? Of course not; because if it he did, it would expose subjectivism for the wimpy, useless kind of thing it actually is. So what he has to do instead is imaginatively invest his subjectivism with the authority of an objective truth. Otherwise, it's just powerless to address any situation, no matter how reprehensible or laudable, at all.
Frank? Like me? Yes, "here and now" I have thought myself into believing that objective morality -- God or No God -- does not exist. What Mr. Cant calls "wimpy", however, I call "fractured and fragmented".
But what he will almost certainly never allow himself to acknowledge about his own
True Christian font is that, existentially, it reflects but his own largely subjectivist need to anchor his Self
in a moral font...that allows him to feel comforted and consoled.
And the Christian God, of course, is powerful enough to address all of his needs. Especially the need to actually believe that
as a Christian whenever he is confronted with any new set of circumstances at all he needs to do is to ask himself, "would Jesus find them reprehensible or laudable?"
This way he never really has to think for himself at all. Everything is all Scripted for him in the Bible.
