Philosophy Now Forum

We can see that Subjectivism is indeed a "shack" Are you referring to yourself and Alexis by "we"? I retract the "we". Perhaps you can't see it. But in that case, I've overestimated either your sagacity or your openness to arguments. I hope I have not. I think it's my ...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 3:59 pm What the •shack• is and what •on fire• refers to — these ideas need development.

If the shack is on fire, at least there is plenty of murky water close at hand to put it out with.

I think it's a public service to point it out. After all, if somebody is trying to live in a shack that's on fire, wouldn't you want to at least tell them they'd better leave it? Seems fair. 8) No shack is on fire, except in your imagination. We can see that Subjectivism is indeed a "shack&quo...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 3:06 pm I work with what is close at hand.

I also sense a closeness between us.

I know. But what is obvious is that for Subjectivists, the word "morality" cannot possibly have any content. It just means, "whatever I feel." And that is not morally commendable: neither others, nor even you can say that makes you objectively "moral." All it means is ...

I'm not a Christian, so I have to make my own arrangements. I know. But what is obvious is that for Subjectivists, the word "morality" cannot possibly have any content. It just means, "whatever I feel." And that is not morally commendable: neither others, nor even you can say th...

It depends on Who they were. :wink: There is only one ultimate moral authority, and only one Judge of the universe. So only one Entity sets the bar for morality. And I hate to say it, but it isn't you. :wink: Why should I believe you, are you infallible, or something? Did you really think I meant &...

And how do we know that what they told us was true? It depends on Who they were. :wink: There is only one ultimate moral authority, and only one Judge of the universe. So only one Entity sets the bar for morality. And I hate to say it, but it isn't you. :wink: Why should I believe you, are you infa...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 8:32 pm I commend your prudence.

Yes, well, I've been caught with my pants down too many times.

Surely the question is not who it came "via," but rather whether what they said was true or not. If it was true, then it really doesn't matter who said it; if it was not, then the speaker is irrelevant to making it true. It is written (reference to Bible literature) that there are sins th...

Then two questions: on what rational basis do we condemn the conduct of these "some people," and believe our own conduct to be better; My only basis is my own sense of right and wrong, and I know of no other basis. Then there's a real problem. I'm sorry about that; I hope you manage to so...

This is a little bit racist; I would call it an example of stereotyping, rather than racism, and stereotyping isn't always unjustified. That's not to say I am claiming it's justified in this instance. 🙂 Interesting! You’re wrong, for reasons which I reserve the right to return to later, but for now...

I have not the slightest idea why you would think that. I've been speaking about the definition and meaning of morality, not the exercising thereof. But morality is nothing if not "practical." What would an "unpracticed morality" even look like? :shock: What I mean is that I hav...

This is a little bit racist; … (dont mention gold bullion or Prince Gabanji your uncle that just needs to unlock his bank account with a large deposit to make us all rich) I would call it an example of stereotyping, rather than racism, and stereotyping isn't always unjustified. That's not to say I ...

I should just point out that while the practice, or exercising, of morality collectively seems to be your main point of interest, it isn't really mine, I have not the slightest idea why you would think that. I've been speaking about the definition and meaning of morality, not the exercising thereof...