TRUMP AHEAD?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

What is "deserve"? "Deserving" is a value judgment. Value judgments, you say, are all subjective. So all you mean is, "...people Harbal subjectively doesn't want to hurt at this particular time." No more.

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

Because stealing is incommensurable with the character and will of God.

But you will say, "Well, there's no God." So you won't believe that answer. But the problem is, you don't have an alternative. "Harbal feels disinclined to steal at this precise second" doesn't tell us anything at all about the moral status of the action of stealing; and that is as much as Subjectivism can say about it.

[Harbal]

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

Because stealing is incommensurable with the character and will of God.

But you will say, "Well, there's no God."

I would have to say that; otherwise I would be lying, which I consider to be morally wrong.

So you won't believe that answer.

If I believed God existed -the God of the Bible- I suppose I would have to accept his authority, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with his "moral" pronouncements, even if I didn't have the courage to go against them. I am aware of some of God's morality through you, and I definitely know there is much of it that I do not agree with.

But the problem is, you don't have an alternative.

But I do have an alternative, and although you seem to have a problem with that, I do not.

"Harbal feels disinclined to steal at this precise second" doesn't tell us anything at all about the moral status of the action of stealing; and that is as much as Subjectivism can say about it.

There is nothing in that which proves, or even suggests, that there is any such thing as objective moral truth. You are just describing what you claim to perceive as the absence of something, and are in no way showing the existence of some alternative thing.

[Immanuel Can]

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

Because stealing is incommensurable with the character and will of God.

But you will say, "Well, there's no God."

I would have to say that; otherwise I would be lying, which I consider to be morally wrong.

But would only be a subjective taste, so not really "wrong," even for you.

So you won't believe that answer.

If I believed God existed -the God of the Bible- I suppose I would have to accept his authority, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with his "moral" pronouncements, even if I didn't have the courage to go against them. I am aware of some of God's morality through you, and I definitely know there is much of it that I do not agree with.

See...that's the thing about truth. It doesn't require anybody's "agreement," or ask for it. It just keeps being objectively true anyway. So if there's a God, which I do believe there is, then objective morality isn't even a problem to explain. And all those who refuse it simply end up on the wrong side of the equation.

But the problem is, you don't have an alternative.

But I do have an alternative, and although you seem to have a problem with that, I do not.

The "problem" with it is not mine. It's the pure property of anybody who wants to argue in favour of "Subjective Morality." It's an inherent absurdity, because if it's "subjective" then there's nothing particularly "moral" about it. One of those words has to disappear, or the illogic is just too obvious.

"Harbal feels disinclined to steal at this precise second" doesn't tell us anything at all about the moral status of the action of stealing; and that is as much as Subjectivism can say about it.

There is nothing in that which proves, or even suggests, that there is any such thing as objective moral truth.

It's the opposite point: not that there is objective moral truth, but that there is clearly no such thing at all as subjective moral truth.

You are just describing what you claim to perceive as the absence of something, and are in no way showing the existence of some alternative thing.

That is PRECISELY my critique of your position. You have every rational reason to know that, whatever you want to believe in, subjective morality is a fake. And you suppose that if you express cynicism toward objective morality, that that will mean that morality will automatically have to be subjective. But it doesn't.

Even if objective morality did not exist at all, subjective morality wouldn't either. NO morality would.

But hey, you can always become a Nihilist. Or you can stay an irrational Subjectivist, and be somebody who can't really help but know that everything he says he believes about morality has not even a ghost's chance of being true.

Pick your poison, I guess.

[Harbal]

Because stealing is incommensurable with the character and will of God.

But you will say, "Well, there's no God."

I would have to say that; otherwise I would be lying, which I consider to be morally wrong.

But would only be a subjective taste, so not really "wrong," even for you.

It would be really wrong as far as I was concerned, but I recognise that not everyone else might think it wrong.

If I believed God existed -the God of the Bible- I suppose I would have to accept his authority, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with his "moral" pronouncements, even if I didn't have the courage to go against them. I am aware of some of God's morality through you, and I definitely know there is much of it that I do not agree with.

See...that's the thing about truth. It doesn't require anybody's "agreement," or ask for it. It just keeps being objectively true anyway.

Let's clear one thing up right from the start; the Bible is not a repository of truth, it is only a collection of religious texts. Any reports of what God said to whom are just hearsay. Even if you believe God exists, there is no way of corroborating the truth of the words that were written about him thousands of years ago.

So if there's a God, which I do believe there is, then objective morality isn't even a problem to explain.

As I understand it, God does not dispense morality, he just issues commands, and we wretched creatures just have to obey them, or else. So if God says, "give the homos a hard time", ours is not to reason why, ours is to give the homos a hard time. Well I'm the kind of fella who does need to know the reason why, so although I might obey God out of fear, I would not be behaving morally, I would just be being obedient. Being moral means following your conscience, not dutifully obeying orders.

But I do have an alternative, and although you seem to have a problem with that, I do not.

The "problem" with it is not mine. It's the pure property of anybody who wants to argue in favour of "Subjective Morality." It's an inherent absurdity, because if it's "subjective" then there's nothing particularly "moral" about it. One of those words has to disappear, or the illogic is just too obvious.

I thoroughly disagree with you. Being moral is to do what you believe to be right; if you do something for any other reason, you are not performing a moral act. I suppose it could be said that if someone truly believes that doing what he understands to be God's will is always the right moral thing to do, then as long as he is doing what he believes is God's will, he is behaving morally. But if you don't believe in God, or you don't have complete trust in the Words of the Bible, that is not an option.

There is nothing in that which proves, or even suggests, that there is any such thing as objective moral truth.

It's the opposite point: not that there is objective moral truth, but that there is clearly no such thing at all as subjective moral truth.

If I have ever uttered the term, "subjective moral truth", it was careless of me, and you would be right to pull me up on it.

you suppose that if you express cynicism toward objective morality, that that will mean that morality will automatically have to be subjective. But it doesn't.

I know for certain that my moral values and opinions are all subjective, so I do not need to come up with any strategy to confirm that to myself. The only question is, is there also another form of morality that is founded on objective moral truth, and after considering the matter, I have to conclude that such a thing is an impossibility.

But hey, you can always become a Nihilist.

I suppose I might already be a nihilist in that I don't think anything that exists came about by any other means than blind natural forces, or there is any intended purpose to any of it. But maybe I have too many personal values to be a nihilist. I don't really know the entry qualifications for nihilism.

Or you can stay an irrational Subjectivist,

If you think morality should be based on rationality, your soul is lost.

and be somebody who can't really help but know that everything he says he believes about morality has not even a ghost's chance of being true.

That was a rather silly thing to say.

[Immanuel Can]

I would have to say that; otherwise I would be lying, which I consider to be morally wrong.

But would only be a subjective taste, so not really "wrong," even for you.

It would be really wrong as far as I was concerned, but I recognise that not everyone else might think it wrong.

And in five minutes, you might even change your own mind, and "subjectively" believe that theft is just fine. Either way, you can't really predict: because there's no principle behind the twinge you have at any given moment.

If I believed God existed -the God of the Bible- I suppose I would have to accept his authority, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with his "moral" pronouncements, even if I didn't have the courage to go against them. I am aware of some of God's morality through you, and I definitely know there is much of it that I do not agree with.

See...that's the thing about truth. It doesn't require anybody's "agreement," or ask for it. It just keeps being objectively true anyway.

Let's clear one thing up right from the start; the Bible is not a repository of truth,

Let's clear this up: one day, you'll find out whether or not that's true.

Even if you believe God exists, there is no way of corroborating the truth of the words that were written about him thousands of years ago.

Hmmm...even those that predicted things that came true, thousands of years before they did?

So if there's a God, which I do believe there is, then objective morality isn't even a problem to explain.

As I understand it, God does not dispense morality, he just issues commands, and we wretched creatures just have to obey them, or else.

Then you've been raised on bad theology. God gives moral directions that are for the good of the universe He created and the people in whose charge He placed it.

But I understand the mistake: if you don't really know who God is, you might imagine him as a distant and tyrannical presence -- something like the "god" of the Deists, perhaps, or like the bearded figure in Sunday School drawings for children, or like the austere character in Blake prints. If you knew Him, you wouldn't suppose any such thing, of course.

Being moral means following your conscience, not dutifully obeying orders.

Why is that an either-or? If conscience, when it is rightly guided and properly listened to, leads us in the direction of morality, then there's no contradiction in the fact that when we get there we find it conforms to the revealed will of God.

But I do have an alternative, and although you seem to have a problem with that, I do not.

The "problem" with it is not mine. It's the pure property of anybody who wants to argue in favour of "Subjective Morality." It's an inherent absurdity, because if it's "subjective" then there's nothing particularly "moral" about it. One of those words has to disappear, or the illogic is just too obvious.

I thoroughly disagree with you. Being moral is to do what you believe to be right;

What makes your subjective whim "moral"? Why does it deserve any such honourific, when the whims of others do not? And what is communicated by any word that's being used to describe literally anything a person could ever have a twinge to do?

I suppose it could be said that if someone truly believes that doing what he understands to be God's will is always the right moral thing to do, then as long as he is doing what he believes is God's will, he is behaving morally.

Of course. If God exists, how could it be otherwise?

But if you don't believe in God, or you don't have complete trust in the Words of the Bible, that is not an option.

The problem is, though, that Subjectivism has no replacement. If God is dead, so is morality. You may have a twinge against theft, and another person may have a twinge in favour of it. Neither of you is, in any sensible way, "moral" for following your twinges -- and all the more, because these twinges are quite opposite to each other.

There is nothing in that which proves, or even suggests, that there is any such thing as objective moral truth.

It's the opposite point: not that there is objective moral truth, but that there is clearly no such thing at all as subjective moral truth.

If I have ever uttered the term, "subjective moral truth", it was careless of me, and you would be right to pull me up on it.

I don't think you have. But you've given the definition without ever using the word. And then you've applied it to your own viewpoint. So the term is applicable.

you suppose that if you express cynicism toward objective morality, that that will mean that morality will automatically have to be subjective. But it doesn't.

I know for certain that my moral values and opinions are all subjective, so I do not need to come up with any strategy to confirm that to myself.

I agree that they might well be subjective. But they aren't moral. They're just subjective. Because under Subjectivism, there is no such thing as morality. There are only twinges.

The only question is, is there also another form of morality that is founded on objective moral truth, and after considering the matter, I have to conclude that such a thing is an impossibility.

Then a sensible person would be a Nihilist. That's the only possible option, since subjective morality is a contradiction in its own terms, and you've ruled arbitrarily against God and objective morality. The only conclusion: there is no right or wrong. There are only twinges.

But hey, you can always become a Nihilist.

I suppose I might already be a nihilist in that I don't think anything that exists came about by any other means than blind natural forces, or there is any intended purpose to any of it. But maybe I have too many personal values to be a nihilist. I don't really know the entry qualifications for nihilism.

You have everything but the name. And all that holds you back is that you insist on calling your "personal values" "moral": a title to which twinges have no particular claim.

Or you can stay an irrational Subjectivist,

If you think morality should be based on rationality, your soul is lost.

I say the opposite, in fact: that morality cannot be based on irrationality. When something is irrational within itself, it's not even possibly true. And that's what is the case with "subjective morality." It can only be "subjective" if it isn't also claimed to be "moral." "Moral" implies, secularly, consonance with an ethos or set of rules and social mores, and more precisely, coherence with ethical universals. Subjectivism has no smattering of that.

...and be somebody who can't really help but know that everything he says he believes about morality has not even a ghost's chance of being true.

That was a rather silly thing to say.

If you can reason, you know it's true.

[Harbal]

Let's clear one thing up right from the start; the Bible is not a repository of truth,

Let's clear this up: one day, you'll find out whether or not that's true.

Come off it, the Brothers Grimm produced stuff more plausible than the Bible.

As I understand it, God does not dispense morality, he just issues commands, and we wretched creatures just have to obey them, or else.

Then you've been raised on bad theology. God gives moral directions that are for the good of the universe He created and the people in whose charge He placed it.

There is no reason to think there is a grain of truth in that, and every reason to think it is just made up rubbish.

But I understand the mistake: if you don't really know who God is, you might imagine him as a distant and tyrannical presence

You are the one who imagines God, not I.

Being moral means following your conscience, not dutifully obeying orders.

Why is that an either-or? If conscience, when it is rightly guided and properly listened to, leads us in the direction of morality, then there's no contradiction in the fact that when we get there we find it conforms to the revealed will of God.

That's just another of your religious beliefs; it means nothing to me.


You haven't even made an attempt to come up with a rational argument for the existence of objective moral truth; all you have written is religious mumbo jumbo. It's all just myth and superstition.

It seems clear that you don't really understand what morality actually is, and you are confusing it with something else.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's clear one thing up right from the start; the Bible is not a repository of truth,

Let's clear this up: one day, you'll find out whether or not that's true.

Come off it, the Brothers Grimm produced stuff more plausible than the Bible.

You clearly don't know what you're saying. You're talking about the world's greatest bestseller and most influential book in human history. You must imagine that a lot of very smart people were just not as smart as you think you are.

But you'll find out.

As I understand it, God does not dispense morality, he just issues commands, and we wretched creatures just have to obey them, or else.

Then you've been raised on bad theology. God gives moral directions that are for the good of the universe He created and the people in whose charge He placed it.

There is no reason to think there is a grain of truth in that, and every reason to think it is just made up rubbish.

Actually, it's the simple truth. But I can see your attitude...you're just not open to thinking about it, clearly.

You haven't even made an attempt to come up with a rational argument for the existence of objective moral truth...

I have. I gave you an objective moral precept when you asked for it, and also gave the reason for it. You even agreed with it: you think stealing is wrong. But nothing's good enough for somebody who has closed his mind, I guess.

It seems clear that you don't really understand what morality actually is, and you are confusing it with something else.

Oh, I'm quite clear. But you can't even give me one moral precept Subjectivism would rationalize for even one person. That's pretty obvious evidence that Subjectivism has nothing to offer us in regards to morality.

[Harbal]

It seems clear that you don't really understand what morality actually is, and you are confusing it with something else.

Oh, I'm quite clear. But you can't even give me one moral precept Subjectivism would rationalize for even one person. That's pretty obvious evidence that Subjectivism has nothing to offer us in regards to morality.

You have redefined the words, "morality" and "moral", to your own liking, so they now mean something completely different to what most people understand them to mean. Your above response, and all the previous ones like it, make that clear. I copied and pasted several dictionary entries for morality on another thread, and you said they were all wrong, and inadequate. You haven't been talking about morality at all, but just some kind of screwed up religious obedience.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems clear that you don't really understand what morality actually is, and you are confusing it with something else.

Oh, I'm quite clear. But you can't even give me one moral precept Subjectivism would rationalize for even one person. That's pretty obvious evidence that Subjectivism has nothing to offer us in regards to morality.

You have redefined the words, "morality" and "moral", to your own liking,

Not at all. All I've asked of those words is the bare minimum: that when we use those words, we use them of a view that gives at least one person one piece of moral information. And obviously, Subjectivism fails even that.

[Harbal]

Oh, I'm quite clear. But you can't even give me one moral precept Subjectivism would rationalize for even one person. That's pretty obvious evidence that Subjectivism has nothing to offer us in regards to morality.

You have redefined the words, "morality" and "moral", to your own liking,

Not at all. All I've asked of those words is the bare minimum: that when we use those words, we use them of a view that gives at least one person one piece of moral information. And obviously, Subjectivism fails even that.

This is a standard dictionary definition for morality:

a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behaviour and character:

That is the definition I have been working to. You have been talking about something else entirely.

[Immanuel Can]

You have redefined the words, "morality" and "moral", to your own liking,

Not at all. All I've asked of those words is the bare minimum: that when we use those words, we use them of a view that gives at least one person one piece of moral information. And obviously, Subjectivism fails even that.

This is a standard dictionary definition for morality:

a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behaviour and character:

You really need to read your own definition. It says, "standards." A "standard" means something fixed and reliable, something common to multiple humans, a thing by which other things can be measured.

Here's the definition of that, from Oxford:

1. a level of quality or attainment. 2. a required or agreed level of quality or attainment. 3. an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.

Related words Oxford lists are: quality, level, degree, caliber, merit, norm, yardstick, benchmark, criterion, pattern, paradigm, ideal, principle, rule, law...

All imply hierarchy of values, and common requirements or measurements. You'll note the absence of "whim" and "twinge," as well as of "impulse," or "feeling," or any of the other synonyms for Subjectivism.

[Harbal]

Not at all. All I've asked of those words is the bare minimum: that when we use those words, we use them of a view that gives at least one person one piece of moral information. And obviously, Subjectivism fails even that.

This is a standard dictionary definition for morality:

a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behaviour and character:

You really need to read your own definition. It says, "standards." A "standard" means something fixed and reliable, something common to multiple humans, a thing by which other things can be measured.

Here's the definition of that, from Oxford:

1. a level of quality or attainment. 2. a required or agreed level of quality or attainment. 3. an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.

Related words Oxford lists are: quality, level, degree, caliber, merit, norm, yardstick, benchmark, criterion, pattern, paradigm, ideal, principle, rule, law...

All imply hierarchy of values, and common requirements or measurements. You'll note the absence of "whim" and "twinge," as well as of "impulse," or "feeling," or any of the other synonyms for Subjectivism.

And you'll note the absence of "whim" and "twinge," as well as of "impulse from any descriptions and explanations I have given. Those are words that you have persistently tried to impose on me, and that I have completely rejected. My account of morality conforms to the standard and normally accepted definition of the word, but yours is something you seem to have concocted yourself, and bears no resemblance to it. How much more egg do you want on your face before you stop this silliness?

[Immanuel Can]

This is a standard dictionary definition for morality:

You really need to read your own definition. It says, "standards." A "standard" means something fixed and reliable, something common to multiple humans, a thing by which other things can be measured.

Here's the definition of that, from Oxford:

1. a level of quality or attainment. 2. a required or agreed level of quality or attainment. 3. an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.

Related words Oxford lists are: quality, level, degree, caliber, merit, norm, yardstick, benchmark, criterion, pattern, paradigm, ideal, principle, rule, law...

All imply hierarchy of values, and common requirements or measurements. You'll note the absence of "whim" and "twinge," as well as of "impulse," or "feeling," or any of the other synonyms for Subjectivism.

And you'll note the absence of "whim" and "twinge," as well as of "impulse from any descriptions and explanations I have given. Those are words that you have persistently tried to impose on me, and that I have completely rejected.

Understandably. Though they're apt, they also expose how empty Subjectivism is.

No Subjectivist, I suspect, would be happy to realize that all he's campaigning for is the special moral status of his own present state of viscera. But that's all it is. He has a feeling...for now...and calls it "moral." That's the limit. And there's no "standard" by which his folly can be judged...which is precisely what he likes about it, because the truth is that all he really wants is to have his own way.

Subjectivism is the value-orientation of toddlers, not of mature persons. Toddlers do it without any effort or teaching...whatever a two-year-old wants, that's all that counts in her world. But when she gets older, she starts to realize that there are other people around, and that there are responsibilities on her, and that she can't have the world her way.

[Harbal]

No Subjectivist, I suspect, would be happy...........

The happiness of Subjectivists, whoever they are, is no concern of mine.

[Immanuel Can]

No Subjectivist, I suspect, would be happy...........

The happiness of Subjectivists, whoever they are, is no concern of mine.

Right. That's what a Subjectivist would say. His present happiness determines everything.