TRUMP AHEAD?

[Immanuel Can]

I’m a situational objectivist.

That won't work. If it's "situational," then you're in no position to tell anybody about their "position," or what their moral "position" on it should be.

Why would anyone want to be in a position to tell anyone what their moral position should be???

Because they don't want to be treated unjustly. They would prefer not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, or killed. Likewise, and more subtly, you also don't want to be cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And since you don't want such things, you need a common set of practices that governs the relationship between you and others, and that defines for both what is just and fair.

[Harbal]

That won't work. If it's "situational," then you're in no position to tell anybody about their "position," or what their moral "position" on it should be.

Why would anyone want to be in a position to tell anyone what their moral position should be???

Because they don't want to be treated unjustly. They would prefer not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, or killed. Likewise, and more subtly, you also don't want to be cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And since you don't want such things, you need a common set of practices that governs the relationship between you and others, and that defines for both what is just and fair.

Not wanting to be robbed, raped, enslaved, killed, cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted are all subjective preferences, aren't they?

[commonsense]

That won't work. If it's "situational," then you're in no position to tell anybody about their "position," or what their moral "position" on it should be.

Unless I am obliged to tell others what to believe or think, it works just fine.

If you live by yourself, in a cave, then you don't need morality at all...neither objective or subjective. And whatever you decide to do, you can just do. There can be, for you, no moral dimension to life, because nobody but you counts.

But let one person enter the situation...a countryman, a neighbour, a wife, your children, a government, or God...anybody...and Subjectivism leaves us unable to decide what is right and wrong in the governance of our relations.

What has convinced me of your point of view is your cave scenario. Subjectively Donald is entitled to his own moral standards and I therefore cannot judge him by my opinion as to how I think he should behave.

Since Objectivism is an impossibility, there can be no moral standards and no need to discuss ethics philosophically.

[commonsense]

That won't work. If it's "situational," then you're in no position to tell anybody about their "position," or what their moral "position" on it should be.

Why would anyone want to be in a position to tell anyone what their moral position should be???

Because they don't want to be treated unjustly. They would prefer not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, or killed. Likewise, and more subtly, you also don't want to be cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And since you don't want such things, you need a common set of practices that governs the relationship between you and others, and that defines for both what is just and fair.

Everyone can do as they please. If I don’t want to be harmed, I will have to be an excellent defender.

[Immanuel Can]

Why would anyone want to be in a position to tell anyone what their moral position should be???

Because they don't want to be treated unjustly. They would prefer not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, or killed. Likewise, and more subtly, you also don't want to be cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And since you don't want such things, you need a common set of practices that governs the relationship between you and others, and that defines for both what is just and fair.

Not wanting to be robbed, raped, enslaved, killed, cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted are all subjective preferences, aren't they?

They are, but not only that.

If that's all they are, then you have no right at all not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, killed, cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And nobody who wants to rob, rape, enslave, kill, cheat, oppress, deny you access, exclude, abuse or slight you has any reason not to do it, if the fancy takes him. When he does, you have no basis for appeal to the law for justice, either.

Subjective Morality is satisfied if all he does is follow his subjective feelings...which, in itself, isn't an objective duty either, so he doesn't even really have to do even that much.

[Immanuel Can]

Unless I am obliged to tell others what to believe or think, it works just fine.

If you live by yourself, in a cave, then you don't need morality at all...neither objective or subjective. And whatever you decide to do, you can just do. There can be, for you, no moral dimension to life, because nobody but you counts.

But let one person enter the situation...a countryman, a neighbour, a wife, your children, a government, or God...anybody...and Subjectivism leaves us unable to decide what is right and wrong in the governance of our relations.

What has convinced me of your point of view is your cave scenario. Subjectively Donald is entitled to his own moral standards and I therefore cannot judge him by my opinion as to how I think he should behave.

Since Objectivism is an impossibility, there can be no moral standards and no need to discuss ethics philosophically.

That would be entirely right. If Objectivism is actually impossible, then so is morality. We can lose all the misguided twaddle to the effect that you and I are still "subjectively moral," because "moral" itself has been vacated of any content. "Moral" now means only "twinge of guilt or pride." And nobody has a duty to react to a mere "twinge."

[Immanuel Can]

Why would anyone want to be in a position to tell anyone what their moral position should be???

Because they don't want to be treated unjustly. They would prefer not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, or killed. Likewise, and more subtly, you also don't want to be cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And since you don't want such things, you need a common set of practices that governs the relationship between you and others, and that defines for both what is just and fair.

Everyone can do as they please. If I don’t want to be harmed, I will have to be an excellent defender.

That's what Nietzsche thought. He thought we were really all on our own, dependent on power, not on right or on legimate moral grounds, when it came to fending off our tyrannizers and/or their henchmen. And if we lost the battle of power, then we were entirely without right of redress or justice. We simply had to eat the loss.

[Harbal]

Because they don't want to be treated unjustly. They would prefer not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, or killed. Likewise, and more subtly, you also don't want to be cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And since you don't want such things, you need a common set of practices that governs the relationship between you and others, and that defines for both what is just and fair.

Not wanting to be robbed, raped, enslaved, killed, cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted are all subjective preferences, aren't they?

They are, but not only that.

If that's all they are, then you have no right at all not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, killed, cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And nobody who wants to rob, rape, enslave, kill, cheat, oppress, deny you access, exclude, abuse or slight you has any reason not to do it, if the fancy takes him. When he does, you have no basis for appeal to the law for justice, either.

Of course I have basis for appeal to the law; the law applies to everybody.

Subjective Morality is satisfied if all he does is follow his subjective feelings...which, in itself, isn't an objective duty either, so he doesn't even really have to do even that much.

Please explain how "objective" morality is going to protect me from being robbed, raped etc.......

[Immanuel Can]

Not wanting to be robbed, raped, enslaved, killed, cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted are all subjective preferences, aren't they?

They are, but not only that.

If that's all they are, then you have no right at all not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, killed, cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And nobody who wants to rob, rape, enslave, kill, cheat, oppress, deny you access, exclude, abuse or slight you has any reason not to do it, if the fancy takes him. When he does, you have no basis for appeal to the law for justice, either.

Of course I have basis for appeal to the law; the law applies to everybody.

Ah, so the law will save you?

And which "law" should rule? Should it be English Common Law, or Sharia? Should it be the rules of Sheffield, or the rules of Rotherham?

Subjective Morality is satisfied if all he does is follow his subjective feelings...which, in itself, isn't an objective duty either, so he doesn't even really have to do even that much.

Please explain how "objective" morality is going to protect me from being robbed, raped etc.......

"Prevent"? Nobody can prevent a Rotherham gang member from committing rape. But it can threaten and deter him beforehand, and justify punishing him afterward. It makes justice justified.

Subjective morality can never provide justification for anything. And it's no deterrent, and no basis for any law. In the real world, Subjectivism only works for hermits.

[Harbal]

They are, but not only that.

If that's all they are, then you have no right at all not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, killed, cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And nobody who wants to rob, rape, enslave, kill, cheat, oppress, deny you access, exclude, abuse or slight you has any reason not to do it, if the fancy takes him. When he does, you have no basis for appeal to the law for justice, either.

Of course I have basis for appeal to the law; the law applies to everybody.

Ah, so the law will save you?

Well I've always paid my taxes, so I would certainly expect it to try.

Please explain how "objective" morality is going to protect me from being robbed, raped etc.......

"Prevent"? Nobody can prevent a Rotherham gang member from committing rape.

Ah, we're back to Rotherham again. It's as if you think I'm somehow responsible for that unfortunate Rotherham incident.

But it can threaten and deter him beforehand

The law might be able to, although it didn't seem to, but your bleatings of objective morality would have been like a cry in the wilderness, I suspect. Whistling in the wind.

and justify punishing him afterward. It makes justice justified.

Just out of interest, how does objective morality avoid arbitrariness when it comes to appropriate punishment? Things with objective existence tend to be measurable, and quantifiable, so, presumably, there must be an exact formula for working out the precise punishment allotted to the exact degree of moral infringement. That's a serious question, so I hope you won't ignore it.

Subjective morality can never provide justification for anything. And it's no deterrent, and no basis for any law. In the real world, Subjectivism only works for hermits.

Yes, I think you have made your opinion about that more than clear. How about talking about the alternative to it?

[Harbal]

They are, but not only that.

If that's all they are, then you have no right at all not to be robbed, raped, enslaved, killed, cheated, oppressed, denied access, excluded, abused or slighted. And nobody who wants to rob, rape, enslave, kill, cheat, oppress, deny you access, exclude, abuse or slight you has any reason not to do it, if the fancy takes him. When he does, you have no basis for appeal to the law for justice, either.

Of course I have basis for appeal to the law; the law applies to everybody.

Ah, so the law will save you?

Well I've always paid my taxes, so I would certainly expect it to try.

Please explain how "objective" morality is going to protect me from being robbed, raped etc.......

"Prevent"? Nobody can prevent a Rotherham gang member from committing rape.

Ah, we're back to Rotherham again. It's as if you think I'm somehow responsible for that unfortunate Rotherham incident.

But it can threaten and deter him beforehand

The law might be able to, although it didn't seem to, but your bleatings of objective morality would have been like a cry in the wilderness, I suspect. Whistling in the wind.

and justify punishing him afterward. It makes justice justified.

Just out of interest, how does objective morality avoid arbitrariness when it comes to appropriate punishment? Things with objective existence tend to be measurable, and quantifiable, so, presumably, there must be an exact formula for working out the precise punishment allotted to the exact degree of moral infringement. That's a serious question, so I hope you won't ignore it.

Subjective morality can never provide justification for anything. And it's no deterrent, and no basis for any law. In the real world, Subjectivism only works for hermits.

Yes, I think you have made your opinion about that more than clear. How about talking about the alternative to it?

[Immanuel Can]

Please explain how "objective" morality is going to protect me from being robbed, raped etc.......

"Prevent"? Nobody can prevent a Rotherham gang member from committing rape.

Ah, we're back to Rotherham again. It's as if you think I'm somehow responsible for that unfortunate Rotherham incident.

Not at all, of course. But your justified antipathy to what they did is what's telling...it says that you realize that not everybody participates in the same moral values.

So I ask again: why should your subjective values be the basis of English law, versus their subjective belief in Sharia? After all, it's all subjective, right?

Just out of interest, how does objective morality avoid arbitrariness when it comes to appropriate punishment?

If it is objective? Then what we adjudicate is objectively wrong or right. It's not "arbitrary" at all.

Things with objective existence tend to be measurable, and quantifiable,

Not all of them.

Give me a quantification of love. Give me a measurement of consciousness. How about a teaspoon of logic?

Subjective morality can never provide justification for anything. And it's no deterrent, and no basis for any law. In the real world, Subjectivism only works for hermits.

Yes, I think you have made your opinion about that more than clear.

Not an opinion. It's the irrationality inherent to Subjectivism. And you can see it: because not even you can suggest one moral value that Subjectivism can necessitate for one rational person.

[Harbal]

"Prevent"? Nobody can prevent a Rotherham gang member from committing rape.

Ah, we're back to Rotherham again. It's as if you think I'm somehow responsible for that unfortunate Rotherham incident.

Not at all, of course. But your justified antipathy to what they did is what's telling...it says that you realize that not everybody participates in the same moral values.

So I ask again: why should your subjective values be the basis of English law,

I don't think they are, although they might coincide sometimes.

Just out of interest, how does objective morality avoid arbitrariness when it comes to appropriate punishment?

If it is objective? Then what we adjudicate is objectively wrong or right. It's not "arbitrary" at all.

I asked how you avoid arbitrariness, which seems a fair question, as you seem to be saying you do avoid it. How do you arrive at the precise nature and degree of punishment that any particular degree of moral wrong doing warrants?

Subjective morality can never provide justification for anything. And it's no deterrent, and no basis for any law. In the real world, Subjectivism only works for hermits.[/quote=IC]
Yes, I think you have made your opinion about that more than clear.

Not an opinion. It's the irrationality inherent to Subjectivism. And you can see it: because not even you can suggest one moral value that Subjectivism can necessitate for one rational person.

I have never claimed that anyone else has to sympathise with my moral values, and that necessity is not part of morality's definition. And you can't suggest one moral value that objectivism can necessitate for one rational person, either.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, we're back to Rotherham again. It's as if you think I'm somehow responsible for that unfortunate Rotherham incident.

Not at all, of course. But your justified antipathy to what they did is what's telling...it says that you realize that not everybody participates in the same moral values.

So I ask again: why should your subjective values be the basis of English law,

I don't think they are, although they might coincide sometimes.

Immaterial. They're somebody's. And you insist they're entirely subjective. So who's right when your values, or those of Pakistani rape gangs, don't correspond with them?

Just out of interest, how does objective morality avoid arbitrariness when it comes to appropriate punishment?

If it is objective? Then what we adjudicate is objectively wrong or right. It's not "arbitrary" at all.

I asked how you avoid arbitrariness, which seems a fair question, as you seem to be saying you do avoid it.

I'm not avoiding it. I'm answering it, and in the only terms upon which it can be answered.

How do you arrive at the precise nature and degree of punishment that any particular degree of moral wrong doing warrants?

That's a secondary question. We're not even so far as being able to ask it yet. You're still at the state in which you don't think ANY degree of punishment can be warranted, by ANYBODY, for ANYTHING, at ANY TIME. So long as that's the case, we can't even decide IF there should be punishment, let alone WHAT punishment is warranted.

Not an opinion. It's the irrationality inherent to Subjectivism. And you can see it: because not even you can suggest one moral value that Subjectivism can necessitate for one rational person.

I have never claimed that anyone else has to sympathise with my moral values, and that necessity is not part of morality's definition.

That doesn't even matter. Even YOU aren't obligated to what you call your "morality." If you change your mind in the next five minutes, your alleged "morality," being totally subjective, changes with that. If that were so, you'd not be a "moral" agent...just an "impulsive" one.

And you can't suggest one moral value that objectivism can necessitate for one rational person, either.

Sure I can. Objectivism says it's immoral to steal, for example. Your only problem with that is presumptive: that is, that not believing in God, you do not believe in any Lawgiver or Ultimate Authority behind the law. If you did, you'd see that it's not a problem at all.

[Harbal]

And you can't suggest one moral value that objectivism can necessitate for one rational person, either.

Sure I can. Objectivism says it's immoral to steal, for example. Your only problem with that is presumptive: that is, that not believing in God, you do not believe in any Lawgiver or Ultimate Authority behind the law. If you did, you'd see that it's not a problem at all.

Were I asked why it is wrong to steal, I would only be able to say that it hurts people who do not deserve to be hurt. Were I asked why it is wrong to hurt people who don't deserve to be hurt, I would only be able to say that it just feels wrong to me. So, yes, that is subjective morality for you.

If you were asked why stealing is wrong, what would you say?