TRUMP AHEAD?

[Immanuel Can]

And I hate to point this out to you, but I am free to believe in, and value, whatever I like.

Of course you are. It's just that nobody else has to. Even you don't have to, as soon as you have a different twinge, in fact. So we're not really bound by any...what's the word...oh, yeah..."morality."

Nobody is bound by your twinges, either, I'm very pleased to say?

Nobody is bound by ANY twinges. That's why Subjectivism does no moral "work" at all.

It doesn't enable a social structure, it doesn't inform a justice system, it doesn't govern relationships among neighbours, it doesn't instruct relations between individuals -- in fact, it doesn't even tell you whether or not you're a good person.

It's a eunuch, morally speaking.

[Harbal]

Of course you are. It's just that nobody else has to. Even you don't have to, as soon as you have a different twinge, in fact. So we're not really bound by any...what's the word...oh, yeah..."morality."

Nobody is bound by your twinges, either, I'm very pleased to say?

Nobody is bound by ANY twinges. That's why Subjectivism does no moral "work" at all.

So you think that all the people who formulate our laws, or are responsible for codes of conduct within various public bodies are adhering to some objective moral rulebook?

You say the most absurd things.

It doesn't enable a social structure, it doesn't inform a justice system, it doesn't govern relationships among neighbours, it doesn't instruct relations between individuals

Of course it does. My society seems to have structure, and the justice system seems to be working pretty much okay. My neighbours very rarely beat each other to death when they happen to meet as they put their bins out for refuse collection, and when I'm out shopping, people usually smile back at me. I can only imagine you must live in some sort of uncivilised ghetto to have given you your impression of how normal people conduct themselves.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody is bound by your twinges, either, I'm very pleased to say?

Nobody is bound by ANY twinges. That's why Subjectivism does no moral "work" at all.

So you think that all the people who formulate our laws, or are responsible for codes of conduct within various public bodies are adhering to some objective moral rulebook?

If they're not responding to objective moral truths, then what they are doing is exactly what Nietzsche said: merely imposing their will on us, using pure power, and nothing more. They have no legitimacy.

You say the most absurd things.

I didn't say that. You did. And then you accuse me of the absurdity you created?

It doesn't enable a social structure, it doesn't inform a justice system, it doesn't govern relationships among neighbours, it doesn't instruct relations between individuals

Of course it does. My society seems to have structure, and the justice system seems to be working pretty much okay.

That's because it's not built on Subjectivism. If it were, there would be no rules or structure at all.

Maybe you don't realize how new the situation is that so many people in the West do not subscribe even suppositionally to the same moral code. But it's very new. No society has ever been founded on Subjectivism, and none ever could be. Subjectivism has no moral information in it.

Subjectivism is just a late decay-stage of putatively-objective social moral valuations. And England is late-Protestant in its moral suppositions, and is not even now fully secular and Subjectivist. How long it will remain late-Protestant is anybody's guess: but you're seeing in London, in Birmingham, in Rotherham, and elsewhere, exactly what happens when that underlying set of Protestant moral assumptions is permitted to be eroded too far. It's a lesson England is still learning (alas), and is yet to see the worst of. But you can expect to see much more coming. Just wait a bit.

[commonsense]

Yes, he does. And that's just fine: every American citizen should have that right. But to suppose that any argument against any candidate that is made by a Subjectivist means something important...that's quite a different question.

All it really means is "Today, I feel icky about Biden/Trump."

Exactly. I for one expect nothing more.

Well, okay, then. But it's not clear why anybody should adopt any particular attitude to Trump based on your ick over what you call his "character" or his "judgment." Those are moral concepts, and you've insisted they're all merely subjective. If some others, or some swing voters, experience him as of sterling character and impeccable judgment, a Subjectivist has nothing more legitimately to say. There is no objective basis for a critique, then.

Yes again. My subjective ick factor informs my vote. Everyone else can vote according to their personal preferences.

[commonsense]

Bad judgment could lead to an exchange of nuclear assets.

You forgot. A Subjectivist has no reason to expect the word "bad" to convey anything. Anything that is the "judgment" made by another "subjective observer" has to be every bit as "good" or "bad" as your own.

That's Subjectivism.

Yes. We seem to be at an impasse. Perhaps I am not understanding you. I don’t know how many different ways I can say that as a subjectivist I don’t concern myself with, nor attempt to influence in any way, the behavior of others, including the act of voting. The rest of the world is entitled to hold a singularly subjective morality unlike mine or accidentally like mine.

[Harbal]

Nobody is bound by ANY twinges. That's why Subjectivism does no moral "work" at all.

So you think that all the people who formulate our laws, or are responsible for codes of conduct within various public bodies are adhering to some objective moral rulebook?

If they're not responding to objective moral truths, then what they are doing is exactly what Nietzsche said: merely imposing their will on us, using pure power, and nothing more. They have no legitimacy.

If they are elected politicians, they do. And are you ever going to shut up about Nietzsche?

You say the most absurd things.

I didn't say that. You did. And then you accuse me of the absurdity you created?

You didn't say what, and what absurdity are you attempting to portray me as creating?

It doesn't enable a social structure, it doesn't inform a justice system, it doesn't govern relationships among neighbours, it doesn't instruct relations between individuals

Of course it does. My society seems to have structure, and the justice system seems to be working pretty much okay.

That's because it's not built on Subjectivism. If it were, there would be no rules or structure at all.

Please demonstrate why there would be no structure, or rules.

Maybe you don't realize how new the situation is that so many people in the West do not subscribe even suppositionally to the same moral code. But it's very new. No society has ever been founded on Subjectivism, and none ever could be. Subjectivism has no moral information in it.

I can only comment on society as it is, not how it used to be, but even if they used to think they were structuring society on some set of objectively true moral principles, all it shows is that they were as misguided as you are. My society's legal system allows same sex marriage, and on demand abortion, amongst other things that you would condemn as not conforming to objective moral standards, so we have moved on.

Subjectivism is just a late decay-stage of putatively-objective social moral valuations. And England is late-Protestant in its moral suppositions, and is not even now fully secular and Subjectivist. How long it will remain late-Protestant is anybody's guess: but you're seeing in London, in Birmingham, in Rotherham, and elsewhere, exactly what happens when that underlying set of Protestant moral assumptions is permitted to be eroded too far. It's a lesson England is still learning (alas), and is yet to see the worst of. But you can expect to see much more coming. Just wait a bit.

Thank you for the lecture on what it is like to live in my own country.

[commonsense]

I hate to point this out, but if morality is subjective, so is your belief in rights. Rights are a moral concept, not one you can glean from objective observation.

And I hate to point this out to you, but I am free to believe in, and value, whatever I like.

Of course you are. It's just that nobody else has to. Even you don't have to, as soon as you have a different twinge, in fact. So we're not really bound by any...what's the word...oh, yeah..."morality."

If morality were meant to be applied universally, then it would fail. I view subjective morality as applying to only one person. Many people can have their own subjective morality, without an intentional relationship to other subjective moralities.

[commonsense]

Of course you are. It's just that nobody else has to. Even you don't have to, as soon as you have a different twinge, in fact. So we're not really bound by any...what's the word...oh, yeah..."morality."

Nobody is bound by your twinges, either, I'm very pleased to say?

Nobody is bound by ANY twinges. That's why Subjectivism does no moral "work" at all.

It doesn't enable a social structure, it doesn't inform a justice system, it doesn't govern relationships among neighbours, it doesn't instruct relations between individuals -- in fact, it doesn't even tell you whether or not you're a good person.

It's a eunuch, morally speaking.

Yes again. Subjective morality is possible, but worthless. Objective morality is impossible.

[Harbal]

Nobody is bound by your twinges, either, I'm very pleased to say?

Nobody is bound by ANY twinges. That's why Subjectivism does no moral "work" at all.

It doesn't enable a social structure, it doesn't inform a justice system, it doesn't govern relationships among neighbours, it doesn't instruct relations between individuals -- in fact, it doesn't even tell you whether or not you're a good person.

It's a eunuch, morally speaking.

Yes again. Subjective morality is possible, but worthless. Objective morality is impossible.

Morality isn't useless, it's very important. It's all this objective/subjective crap that is useless. Morality is just about behaving decently towards each other.

[Immanuel Can]

Exactly. I for one expect nothing more.

Well, okay, then. But it's not clear why anybody should adopt any particular attitude to Trump based on your ick over what you call his "character" or his "judgment." Those are moral concepts, and you've insisted they're all merely subjective. If some others, or some swing voters, experience him as of sterling character and impeccable judgment, a Subjectivist has nothing more legitimately to say. There is no objective basis for a critique, then.

Yes again. My subjective ick factor informs my vote. Everyone else can vote according to their personal preferences.

Fair enough. That's what a Subjectivist should say. At least you're being rational in terms of what you say you believe the nature of morality is. I can't argue with that.

[Immanuel Can]

Bad judgment could lead to an exchange of nuclear assets.

You forgot. A Subjectivist has no reason to expect the word "bad" to convey anything. Anything that is the "judgment" made by another "subjective observer" has to be every bit as "good" or "bad" as your own.

That's Subjectivism.

Yes. We seem to be at an impasse. Perhaps I am not understanding you. I don’t know how many different ways I can say that as a subjectivist I don’t concern myself with, nor attempt to influence in any way, the behavior of others, including the act of voting. The rest of the world is entitled to hold a singularly subjective morality unlike mine or accidentally like mine.

And I applaud you on your consistency.

However, the rest of the Subjectivists here aren't so consistent, apparently. They want us to think Americans shouldn't vote for Trump, as though some sort of moral negative attaches to the "act of voting" of others. In other words, they slide over to Objectivism when it's something they really care about, but when they want to avoid moral responsibility themselves, they slide right back to Subjectivism.

At least you don't do that. Good for you. Or, at least, not worse than anybody else for you.

[Immanuel Can]

So you think that all the people who formulate our laws, or are responsible for codes of conduct within various public bodies are adhering to some objective moral rulebook?

If they're not responding to objective moral truths, then what they are doing is exactly what Nietzsche said: merely imposing their will on us, using pure power, and nothing more. They have no legitimacy.

If they are elected politicians, they do.

Where is the code that says "elections" count? I thought you said there were no objective moral truths; therefore, it can't be immoral to deprive somebody of their vote, and it can't be moral to care about elections.

And are you ever going to shut up about Nietzsche?

Well, if you want me to shut up about one of the most consistent Subjectivists who's ever lived, I guess I could...but no, I probably won't.

You say the most absurd things.

I didn't say that. You did. And then you accuse me of the absurdity you created?

You didn't say what, and what absurdity are you attempting to portray me as creating?

Your wording. Go back and read what you wrote, if you've forgotten.

Of course it does. My society seems to have structure, and the justice system seems to be working pretty much okay.

That's because it's not built on Subjectivism. If it were, there would be no rules or structure at all.

Please demonstrate why there would be no structure, or rules.

Because Subjectivism provides no grounds at all for any such thing. Any "rules" or "structure," then, has to be purely arbitrary and amoral. It cannot possibly be obligatory for anybody to pay any attention to either.

Subjectivism is just a late decay-stage of putatively-objective social moral valuations. And England is late-Protestant in its moral suppositions, and is not even now fully secular and Subjectivist. How long it will remain late-Protestant is anybody's guess: but you're seeing in London, in Birmingham, in Rotherham, and elsewhere, exactly what happens when that underlying set of Protestant moral assumptions is permitted to be eroded too far. It's a lesson England is still learning (alas), and is yet to see the worst of. But you can expect to see much more coming. Just wait a bit.

Thank you for the lecture on what it is like to live in my own country.

Well, you didn't really seem to know. I guess life in Yorkshire is pretty provincial...but maybe you'd be wise to take a trip to Rotherham or Birmingham or somewhere in the heart of London. You could always stand on a street corner and yell, "Allah is a fraud." And then we'll see if the post-Protestant belief in freedom of speech holds up or not. But I don't recommend it, because if what I'm saying is true, that won't work out well for you. You'll know how wrong you are, but probably not long enough to do any repenting of it.

[Harbal]

If they're not responding to objective moral truths, then what they are doing is exactly what Nietzsche said: merely imposing their will on us, using pure power, and nothing more. They have no legitimacy.

If they are elected politicians, they do.

Where is the code that says "elections" count?

I imagine it's written in the law somewhere. Everyone seems to abide by the same rules, unless they are called Trump, of course, so it seems they must exist.

I thought you said there were no objective moral truths; therefore, it can't be immoral to deprive somebody of their vote, and it can't be moral to care about elections.

I never said morality didn't exist, I just said objective moral truth doesn't exist.

And are you ever going to shut up about Nietzsche?

Well, if you want me to shut up about one of the most consistent Subjectivists who's ever lived, I guess I could...but no, I probably won't.

As you wish.

You didn't say what, and what absurdity are you attempting to portray me as creating?

Your wording. Go back and read what you wrote, if you've forgotten.

If I was being absurd, I don't particularly want to remind myself about it.

Please demonstrate why there would be no structure, or rules.

Because Subjectivism provides no grounds at all for any such thing. Any "rules" or "structure," then, has to be purely arbitrary and amoral. It cannot possibly be obligatory for anybody to pay any attention to either.

We have laws that are secular, and make no claim of being informed by objective moral truth, but are nevertheless obligatory. Try knocking a policeman's hat off, if you don't believe me, and while you are waiting to be dealt with at the police station, scan your Bible and see if you can find anything about the moral status of abusing police property, particularly when a policeman is wearing it.

Thank you for the lecture on what it is like to live in my own country.

Well, you didn't really seem to know.

I may not seem to know, but you actually don't know.

I guess life in Yorkshire is pretty provincial...but maybe you'd be wise to take a trip to Rotherham or Birmingham or somewhere in the heart of London. You could always stand on a street corner and yell, "Allah is a fraud."

It would be considerably more dangerous for me to stay where I am and yell, "I love Margaret Thatcher".

And then we'll see if the post-Protestant belief in freedom of speech holds up or not.

When did freedom of speech become the topic of conversation? But, just to go along with it, how would standing on a street corner a couple of hundred years ago, shouting, "Jesus was a wanker", have gone down?

[Immanuel Can]

If they are elected politicians, they do.

Where is the code that says "elections" count?

I imagine it's written in the law somewhere.

You "imagine"? And you "imagine" that the same law upon which elections depend says elections "must" be respected?

That's circular. There has to be a better, independent reason that elections are legitimate, or all you've done is essentially say, "You've got to respect the government, because the government says you do." And like Nietzsche said, that's just a power move, not a moral justification for elections.

I thought you said there were no objective moral truths; therefore, it can't be immoral to deprive somebody of their vote, and it can't be moral to care about elections.

I never said morality didn't exist, I just said objective moral truth doesn't exist.

So it's not an objective moral truth that elections deserve respecting. That's what you have to believe, based on that claim.

Please demonstrate why there would be no structure, or rules.

Because Subjectivism provides no grounds at all for any such thing. Any "rules" or "structure," then, has to be purely arbitrary and amoral. It cannot possibly be obligatory for anybody to pay any attention to either.

We have laws that are secular, and make no claim of being informed by objective moral truth, but are nevertheless obligatory. Try knocking a policeman's hat off, if you don't believe me, and while you are waiting to be dealt with at the police station, scan your Bible and see if you can find anything about the moral status of abusing police property, particularly when a policeman is wearing it.

You've lapsed again into a pure power argument: it goes, be nice to police, or they'll hurt you. Not that it's right to do so. Not that it's moral to do so. Just do so so that you don't get beaten, or jailed, or whatever. Nice.

I guess life in Yorkshire is pretty provincial...but maybe you'd be wise to take a trip to Rotherham or Birmingham or somewhere in the heart of London. You could always stand on a street corner and yell, "Allah is a fraud."

It would be considerably more dangerous for me to stay where I am and yell, "I love Margaret Thatcher".

Take your pick. Lots of people do love Thatcher. But you're ducking the point by changing the example, because you know darn well how right I am about that. You wouldn't last five minutes...and it wouldn't be because of English Common Law that your head came off.

[Age]

Nobody is bound by ANY twinges. That's why Subjectivism does no moral "work" at all.

So you think that all the people who formulate our laws, or are responsible for codes of conduct within various public bodies are adhering to some objective moral rulebook?

If they're not responding to objective moral truths, then what they are doing is exactly what Nietzsche said: merely imposing their will on us, using pure power, and nothing more. They have no legitimacy.

You say the most absurd things.

I didn't say that. You did. And then you accuse me of the absurdity you created?

It doesn't enable a social structure, it doesn't inform a justice system, it doesn't govern relationships among neighbours, it doesn't instruct relations between individuals

Of course it does. My society seems to have structure, and the justice system seems to be working pretty much okay.

That's because it's not built on Subjectivism. If it were, there would be no rules or structure at all.

Maybe you don't realize how new the situation is that so many people in the West do not subscribe even suppositionally to the same moral code.

What 'moral code'?

your complete lack of absolutely any ability at all to list what is 'objectively moral' shows and proves that you have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what is supposed to be 'objectively morally true or right'.

So, if you cannot even write down what is supposed to be 'objectively moral', then why do you presuppose one exists?

But it's very new. No society has ever been founded on Subjectivism, and none ever could be. Subjectivism has no moral information in it.

Subjectivism is just a late decay-stage of putatively-objective social moral valuations. And England is late-Protestant in its moral suppositions, and is not even now fully secular and Subjectivist. How long it will remain late-Protestant is anybody's guess: but you're seeing in London, in Birmingham, in Rotherham, and elsewhere, exactly what happens when that underlying set of Protestant moral assumptions is permitted to be eroded too far. It's a lesson England is still learning (alas), and is yet to see the worst of. But you can expect to see much more coming. Just wait a bit.

So, if what you claim above here is true, then, to you, 'objectivism' and what is morally Right and Wrong in Life has absolutely nothing at all to do with "christianity".