Theism and Moral Realism are separate concepts

[Harbal]

Something with no objective reality can't be right or wrong.

But that's what I've always said. Morality is not subject to objective reality. There are no objective facts that you can call upon to suggest otherwise.

That's what you've said. So you can't now say that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, slave-owners, rapists, etc. are "wrong." You can only say that at this minute, you happen not to like them. But for you, any objective moral condemnation is utterly unthinkable.

Alas, ordinary, straight forward moral condemnation is all I could offer. But I would be doing it from personal moral conviction, rather than having to check in a book what moral attitude I should take.

But I don't believe that. And I don't think you believe it, either. It think you know they were not merely wrong, but foully evil, as well.

Yes, I know they were wrong, because my own moral sense tells me they were wrong. "Foully evil" isn't the kind of expression I tend to use.

So perhaps you're just a better person than your philosophy would warrant you to be.

On the contrary, I have yet to fully live up to what my philosophy requires of me.

But if you still do have a moral concern about them, then according to your own Subjectivism, you're not being rational.

No, I'm being emotional, and that is what makes my concern moral. To condemn them on the grounds of their disregard for God's will might be rational for you, given your beliefs, but that isn't morality, it is merely religious conviction.

I base my moral judgement on how people treat other people, but you seem to base yours on how they treat God, which strongly suggests, at least to me, that you have very little understanding of what morality is.

[FlashDangerpants]

...there's one sense for 'God' as in the Deity who created the universe,

Who has this one "sense" you mention?

Did you somehow fail to understand what sense and reference means?

[Immanuel Can]

But that's what I've always said. Morality is not subject to objective reality. There are no objective facts that you can call upon to suggest otherwise.

That's what you've said. So you can't now say that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, slave-owners, rapists, etc. are "wrong." You can only say that at this minute, you happen not to like them. But for you, any objective moral condemnation is utterly unthinkable.

Alas, ordinary, straight forward moral condemnation is all I could offer.

But only one based on a feeling, and possibly extremely temporary, and not one such that anything is really said to be wrong with the Holocaust. What you can say is only, "For now, me no like."

But if you still do have a moral concern about them, then according to your own Subjectivism, you're not being rational.

No, I'm being emotional, and that is what makes my concern moral.

For now, that's your feeling. But it isn't warranted by any objective facts at all, and thus simply may not last, according to Subjectivism.

I base my moral judgement on how people treat other people,

On what basis can you decide what's the "right" way to "treat other people?" You believe there are no objective facts available to tell you. So again, you can only fall back to "Harbal no feel good...for now."

I suppose that if that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do. I have to say, though, it doesn't seem you're much of a bulwark against evil, and not much of a proponent of good, if that's as much as you can honestly say you know about morality.

Well, I am aware of your...your declaration of personal feeling. I suppose there's no more to be said about that.

[Immanuel Can]

...there's one sense for 'God' as in the Deity who created the universe,

Who has this one "sense" you mention?

Did you somehow fail to understand what sense and reference means?

I'm finding this conversation...let's say, "unenriching." That's unfortunate, because I've been trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, and to be patient in unravelling what it is you're trying to say. But it's too convoluted, and too obviously self-contradictory, and now attempted-pedantic, as well.

So I thank you for your time, but I think it's time I just left it there.

[FlashDangerpants]

Who has this one "sense" you mention?

Did you somehow fail to understand what sense and reference means?

I'm finding this conversation...let's say, "unenriching." That's unfortunate, because I've been trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, and to be patient in unravelling what it is you're trying to say. But it's too convoluted, and too obviously self-contradictory, and now attempted-pedantic, as well.

So I thank you for your time, but I think it's time I just left it there.

Is that the actual honest truth? That you were trying your best to understand rather than to tie me up in asides in order to avoid facing my actual point?

I was really just trying to get you to explain how beliefs about the correct thing to direct a claim such as "is good" (the referent to which the predicate applies) at somehow feed back into what the concept of "good" means (the semantic content of the concept itself) in a way that doesn't render communication impossible by way of private languages. To me it seemed that your only efforts were direted at not conversing about any such thing.

But perhaps "True" means something different to what it means to other people if you believe you have a special deal with God.

[Harbal]

That's what you've said. So you can't now say that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, slave-owners, rapists, etc. are "wrong." You can only say that at this minute, you happen not to like them. But for you, any objective moral condemnation is utterly unthinkable.

Alas, ordinary, straight forward moral condemnation is all I could offer.

But only one based on a feeling, and possibly extremely temporary, and not one such that anything is really said to be wrong with the Holocaust. What you can say is only, "For now, me no like."

But if you still do have a moral concern about them, then according to your own Subjectivism, you're not being rational.

No, I'm being emotional, and that is what makes my concern moral.

For now, that's your feeling. But it isn't warranted by any objective facts at all, and thus simply may not last, according to Subjectivism.

I base my moral judgement on how people treat other people,

On what basis can you decide what's the "right" way to "treat other people?" You believe there are no objective facts available to tell you. So again, you can only fall back to "Harbal no feel good...for now."

I suppose that if that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do. I have to say, though, it doesn't seem you're much of a bulwark against evil, and not much of a proponent of good, if that's as much as you can honestly say you know about morality.

Well, I am aware of your...your declaration of personal feeling. I suppose there's no more to be said about that.

As I've said before; it works for me. As for you; you haven't got morality, you've only got religion.

[Immanuel Can]

Did you somehow fail to understand what sense and reference means?

I'm finding this conversation...let's say, "unenriching." That's unfortunate, because I've been trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, and to be patient in unravelling what it is you're trying to say. But it's too convoluted, and too obviously self-contradictory, and now attempted-pedantic, as well.

So I thank you for your time, but I think it's time I just left it there.

Is that the actual honest truth?

Afraid so. I can't make heads-or-tails of what you're attempting to argue.

[Immanuel Can]

As I've said before; it works for me.

Hmmm...It doesn't work for anybody else, though. That's Subjectivism. And if your neighbour is a Subjectivist, you'd better hope you get lucky and get the same kind of Subjectivist. As for a society, a justice system or a system of distribution, give up on any hope of having that...people's subjective opinons are too diverse for that even to be possible.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm finding this conversation...let's say, "unenriching." That's unfortunate, because I've been trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, and to be patient in unravelling what it is you're trying to say. But it's too convoluted, and too obviously self-contradictory, and now attempted-pedantic, as well.

So I thank you for your time, but I think it's time I just left it there.

Is that the actual honest truth?

Afraid so. I can't make heads-or-tails of what you're attempting to argue.

I did ask if you are familiar at all with any philosophy of language. It seems the answer to that is no.

[Immanuel Can]

Is that the actual honest truth?

Afraid so. I can't make heads-or-tails of what you're attempting to argue.

I did ask if you are familiar at all with any philosophy of language. It seems the answer to that is no.

Oh, dear.

Well, one day, maybe you'll know...

Until then, you're still amusing the heck out of me.

[Harbal]

As I've said before; it works for me.

Hmmm...It doesn't work for anybody else, though.

How do you know? Most people seem to have a reasonable sense of morality without having to reach for a Bible.

That's Subjectivism. And if your neighbour is a Subjectivist, you'd better hope you get lucky and get the same kind of Subjectivist.

I'll ask him if he's a subjectivist when I next see him; although I'm sure he'll look at me as if I've gone nuts.

As for a society, a justice system or a system of distribution, give up on any hope of having that

The society I live in isn't perfect, but it's pretty okay, and there's very little mention of God.

I'm sure you must know from experience that most people don't take kindly to being lectured about what God wants.

[FlashDangerpants]

Afraid so. I can't make heads-or-tails of what you're attempting to argue.

I did ask if you are familiar at all with any philosophy of language. It seems the answer to that is no.

Oh, dear.

Well, one day, maybe you'll know...

Until then, you're still amusing the heck out of me.

Are you dropping another of your clumsy hints that we should all be in awe of you and the many acheivments about which you are too humble to boast?

[Immanuel Can]

As I've said before; it works for me.

Hmmm...It doesn't work for anybody else, though.

How do you know?

Well, move to Rotherham.

As for a society, a justice system or a system of distribution, give up on any hope of having that

The society I live in isn't perfect, but it's pretty okay, and there's very little mention of God.

That's a rather recent state of affairs...and you're about to find out what it entails, I suspect.

I'm sure you must know from experience that most people don't take kindly to being lectured about what God wants.

Then don't lecture them.

[Immanuel Can]

I did ask if you are familiar at all with any philosophy of language. It seems the answer to that is no.

Oh, dear.

Well, one day, maybe you'll know...

Until then, you're still amusing the heck out of me.

Are you dropping another of your clumsy hints that we should all be in awe of you and the many acheivments about which you are too humble to boast?

Yes...that's it. You've got me. How foolish I was to think I could fool you.

[Harbal]

Hmmm...It doesn't work for anybody else, though.

How do you know?

Well, move to Rotherham.

You really need to get this Rotherham thing out of your system. I suggest you visit Rotherham; you will be amazed at how dull and ordinary the place is.

The society I live in isn't perfect, but it's pretty okay, and there's very little mention of God.

That's a rather recent state of affairs...and you're about to find out what it entails, I suspect.

We'll see, no doubt.

I'm sure you must know from experience that most people don't take kindly to being lectured about what God wants.

Then don't lecture them.

Good advice.