For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Not so. Each may "think" they are right. But both cannot possibly "be" right, because they're opposite actions: steeling and non-stealing. And if we don't know which is which, then we have an epistemological problem...not an ontological-moral one.Harbal wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:23 amWell each thinks they are right, just like it is with objectivism.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 12:32 amThe thief has different feelings. How do we know, given Subjectivism, whose feelings are right?
Hey, burritos are highly moral. That's an absolute.But you don't. Because, being a Subjectivist, you can't know anything more than than that you have a twinge.I am the one who needs to know, not you.For that matter, how do we know that the fact that you have a feeling about stealing means that it's a "moral" feeling.
Stop eating burritos?Maybe it's just a feeling of queasy. Maybe you ate a bad burrito. Maybe you'll feel differently after you have some sleep, or if you find better reasons to steal.
What is "moral" in that situation? What is "the right thing to do"?
Why does your "society" get to tyrannize his? Is that moral? Why should your subjectivity trump his subjectivity?By normal social standards, I would be right, but objectively speaking, the question doesn't even make sense.IC wrote:For now. And the thief has a different feeling. Who's right?Harbal wrote:My subjectivism thinks that stealing is wrong, so it seems it does have an opinion.
As long as it's the kind of queasy that stops me from stealing, what's it matter?IC wrote:No, it doesn't. It tells you you feel queasy. Nothing more.Harbal wrote: It tells me what the moral status of theft is,...
And you can. But why does your neighbour have to trust your feelings? And do you want to just trust his, especially if his include theft as a legitimate social interaction?I suppose it's a matter of trusting my feelings,IC wrote:You have a feeling. You don't know if it's a morally right feeling, a morally wrong feeling, or just a feeling.Harbal wrote:It doesn't leave me clueless, because I have a sense of right and wrong that I can refer to.
I already gave an example ... if stealing is accepted as moral, then people would have to waste time, effort and money on securing their property.
That's moral relativism.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 2:03 am Then this part...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_ ... eft!%22%20
Not if your own One True Path to Enlightenment revolves around dialectical materialism. And the thing about "political economy" is that Marx and Engels insisted that their own historical assessment was...scientific?phyllo wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 2:10 amThat's moral relativism.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 2:03 am Then this part...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_ ... eft!%22%20
Putting 'labels' on human beings like, for example, "thief", is why you human beings are taking so long to uncover, or work out, what the actually irrefutable Truth is here.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:57 amNot so. Each may "think" they are right. But both cannot possibly "be" right, because they're opposite actions: steeling and non-stealing. And if we don't know which is which, then we have an epistemological problem...not an ontological-moral one.Harbal wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:23 amWell each thinks they are right, just like it is with objectivism.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 12:32 am
The thief has different feelings. How do we know, given Subjectivism, whose feelings are right?
Stealing will still be objectively wrong. Harbal thinks it is wrong. The thief thinks it's not. Harbal is correct. The thief is wrong. And that the thief does not KNOW he's wrong is immaterial to the question of whether or not he IS wrong.
One doesn't have to KNOW something for it to still BE so.
This, obviously, has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'morality', nor with what is actually Right, and Wrong, in Life.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:57 am To put it in another example, I sometimes don't know the posted speed of a road. Maybe I haven't checked the signs lately. Maybe I was daydreaming. Maybe I'm between speed signs. But I'm not sure. Am I on a highway or a byway? Is this a one-lane road or a superhighway? Are we going through a town, or is it open land? All these things affect what speed it will be.
But when I get to the next sign, I find it's 100 km/hr, or 60 miles/hr. Did my lack of knowledge mean there was no particular legal speed for that section of highway? No. It just means that I happened, at that particular moment, to be unaware of it. And now I know better. But the legal speed was still the legal speed, whether I knew what it was, or not.
But you could very easily, very simply, and very honestly say, or what you might call 'plead', 'I did not know'. But, by being honest, if you are, will not make a 'monetary paid' human being paid by a 'monetary seeking' government allow you to leave without giving you a 'monetary obtaining fine', necessarily.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:57 am What I know, and what is the case are two different things. I can't plead that I didn't know what I should have known, and what was actually legal. If I was inattentive, the fault was mine. I wasn't paying attention to the signs. But the speed limit did not become subjective.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:57 amWhen you also being a "subjectivist" "immanuel can" is why you have failed every time to provide 'us' with just one actual 'objective moral Right, or Wrong', in Life.But you don't. Because, being a Subjectivist, you can't know anything more than than that you have a twinge.I am the one who needs to know, not you.
you, obviously, also only have what you call a 'twinge' in regards to expressing what is actually Right, and Wrong, in Life.
In other words, you only 'think you know' what you know.Hey, burritos are highly moral. That's an absolute.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:57 amStop eating burritos?Maybe it's just a feeling of queasy. Maybe you ate a bad burrito. Maybe you'll feel differently after you have some sleep, or if you find better reasons to steal.
What is "moral" in that situation? What is "the right thing to do"?
Why does your "society" get to tyrannize his? Is that moral? Why should your subjectivity trump his subjectivity?By normal social standards, I would be right, but objectively speaking, the question doesn't even make sense.IC wrote: For now. And the thief has a different feeling. Who's right?As long as it's the kind of queasy that stops me from stealing, what's it matter?IC wrote: No, it doesn't. It tells you you feel queasy. Nothing more.
Well, morality is for more than you. It has to do with our relations with others.
Consider stealing. Stealing means taking somebody else's property, or them taking yours.
you adult human beings 'believing' that you 'own' things/property is part of the reason why, in the days when this is being written, you are all in 'the mess' that you are in and, still, have absolutely no consciously able to be expressed actual idea nor clue about what is Truly Right, and Wrong, in Life.For one, for example, to claim, 'This is my land', which was obviously stolen/taken, from another, and then also claim, ' you cannot take nor come onto 'my land' ', is beyond absurd and being hypocritical. The blindness and stupidity in claiming things like this would be beyond comprehension, if it was not, already, fully known and understood why you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, were exactly like 'the way' that you all are.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:57 am Immediately, there are at least two people involved in the moral situation. But there are more, because there is your family, your community, your society, your justice system, your courts and penal system, your mercantile system, and the world as a whole, all of which have a stake in whether or not stealing is to be allowed.Will you ever provide an example of why 'your so-called' 'feelings' are the only True and Right ones here "immanuel can"?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:57 am And you can. But why does your neighbour have to trust your feelings? And do you want to just trust his, especially if his include theft as a legitimate social interaction?
Or, are you just going to go on pretending that you are an "objectivist" while it is only every one else who is a "subjectivist"?
The only one that you, really, fooling and deceiving here is "yourself" "immanuel can".
Well, that is an interesting slant. We are not subjects of, in the sense of being observed and/or directed. We are part of a relational coupling between subject and object, the existence of both, as they are interdependent, determines our existence or non-existence. Take one away and the other ceases to be. Relational I don't believe equates with being subject to, it is the relation that makes it one reality.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:20 pmWe are subjects of in the sense that we can't extricate ourselves from our perceptions and experiences to stand outside of them entirely independent of them. To say that biology is everything is to elevate biology above all else and that is a second hand experience, not the way we experience life when we get right down to it.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 6:30 am You state, "We are subjects yes, but also subjects of." Please explain subjects of, to what are we subjects?
Again, your what is fact is grounded on an illusion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 11:26 amFalse. The claim 'all humans do not torture and kill babies for pleasure' is not a moral assertion. It's a factual assertion with a truth-value. It has no moral entailment whatsoever - as neither would it's negation: 'all humans torture and kill babies for pleasure'.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:50 amIf there are facts [even if there are no facts], opinions, beliefs and judgment of them do translate into real actions.
There are physical moral facts within all humans and you, e.g. the fact that 'all humans do not torture and kill babies for pleasure' which is represent by its physical neural correlates thus objective within the scientific and moral Framework and System.So yes, to repeat: the important question is: are there moral facts - moral features of reality - so that moral assertions have factual truth-value, regardless of opinion, individual or collective? And I think that's what I've been addressing all along.
As ever, your insertion of a moral entailment is question-begging - you just assume it, with flummery about 'the moral fsk' - or whatever you call it now. And you just don't understand the mistake. Probably never will.
I agree with that.
I say that what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion. And I say that's why we value facts and objectivity.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 4:04 amAgain, your what is fact is grounded on an illusion.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 11:26 amFalse. The claim 'all humans do not torture and kill babies for pleasure' is not a moral assertion. It's a factual assertion with a truth-value. It has no moral entailment whatsoever - as neither would it's negation: 'all humans torture and kill babies for pleasure'.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:50 am
If there are facts [even if there are no facts], opinions, beliefs and judgment of them do translate into real actions.
There are physical moral facts within all humans and you, e.g. the fact that 'all humans do not torture and kill babies for pleasure' which is represent by its physical neural correlates thus objective within the scientific and moral Framework and System.
As ever, your insertion of a moral entailment is question-begging - you just assume it, with flummery about 'the moral fsk' - or whatever you call it now. And you just don't understand the mistake. Probably never will.
You have been running away and not countering my argument.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
I have stated your 'what is fact' is outdated, here is the generally accepted meaning of what is a fact.
What is a Fact? ref: WIKI
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
And why do we not want people to steal from our property? I would say the reason is subjective; it's because we don't like it. If nobody minded spending time, effort and money on securing their property, and they didn't mind having their possessions stolen, then what reason would they have for thinking stealing was wrong?
No, your argument was that subjectivism doesn't give us information on objectivist terms, as subjectivism does give information on its own terms. You are an idiot.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 11:02 pmNo, my argument was that Subjectivism gives us no information on ITS OWN terms. Objectivism is not assumed. You can become a Nihilist, if you like.Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:29 pmBut your argument was, once again, that subjectivism doesn't give us any information on objectivist terms.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 10:21 pm
You're not reading. My argument is that Subjectivism doesn't work at all, even on its own terms. And that's regardless of whether or not objective morality is even possible.
You continue to come up with spurious reasoning to pick holes in whatever I say about the subjective nature of morality, but you are completely unable to show how objective morality exists, or even how it could possibly exist.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:57 amNot so. Each may "think" they are right. But both cannot possibly "be" right, because they're opposite actions: steeling and non-stealing. And if we don't know which is which, then we have an epistemological problem...not an ontological-moral one.Harbal wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 1:23 amWell each thinks they are right, just like it is with objectivism.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 12:32 am
The thief has different feelings. How do we know, given Subjectivism, whose feelings are right?
Stealing will still be objectively wrong. Harbal thinks it is wrong. The thief thinks it's not. Harbal is correct. The thief is wrong. And that the thief does not KNOW he's wrong is immaterial to the question of whether or not he IS wrong.
One doesn't have to KNOW something for it to still BE so.
To put it in another example, I sometimes don't know the posted speed of a road. Maybe I haven't checked the signs lately. Maybe I was daydreaming. Maybe I'm between speed signs. But I'm not sure. Am I on a highway or a byway? Is this a one-lane road or a superhighway? Are we going through a town, or is it open land? All these things affect what speed it will be.
But when I get to the next sign, I find it's 100 km/hr, or 60 miles/hr. Did my lack of knowledge mean there was no particular legal speed for that section of highway? No. It just means that I happened, at that particular moment, to be unaware of it. And now I know better. But the legal speed was still the legal speed, whether I knew what it was, or not.
What I know, and what is the case are two different things. I can't plead that I didn't know what I should have known, and what was actually legal. If I was inattentive, the fault was mine. I wasn't paying attention to the signs. But the speed limit did not become subjective.
Hey, burritos are highly moral. That's an absolute.But you don't. Because, being a Subjectivist, you can't know anything more than than that you have a twinge.I am the one who needs to know, not you.
Stop eating burritos?Maybe it's just a feeling of queasy. Maybe you ate a bad burrito. Maybe you'll feel differently after you have some sleep, or if you find better reasons to steal.
What is "moral" in that situation? What is "the right thing to do"?
Why does your "society" get to tyrannize his? Is that moral? Why should your subjectivity trump his subjectivity?By normal social standards, I would be right, but objectively speaking, the question doesn't even make sense.IC wrote: For now. And the thief has a different feeling. Who's right?As long as it's the kind of queasy that stops me from stealing, what's it matter?IC wrote: No, it doesn't. It tells you you feel queasy. Nothing more.
Well, morality is for more than you. It has to do with our relations with others.
Consider stealing. Stealing means taking somebody else's property, or them taking yours. Immediately, there are at least two people involved in the moral situation. But there are more, because there is your family, your community, your society, your justice system, your courts and penal system, your mercantile system, and the world as a whole, all of which have a stake in whether or not stealing is to be allowed.
And you can. But why does your neighbour have to trust your feelings? And do you want to just trust his, especially if his include theft as a legitimate social interaction?I suppose it's a matter of trusting my feelings,IC wrote: You have a feeling. You don't know if it's a morally right feeling, a morally wrong feeling, or just a feeling.