Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 11:22 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 9:26 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 4:52 pm
Do you think the Chinese people don't have democracy because they don't want it, then?
They don't have democracy because SOMEBODY doesn't want them to have it. Or rather, "somebodies."
And do you suppose those somebodies asked the Chinese people whether they were subjectivists before they decided not to let them have democracy?
If they weren't asked, then by Subjectivism's lights,
nobody has an actual duty to ask them. And now, whatever happened, the Chinese people have
no grounds for protest. They
aren't being treated unjustly, by the subjective opinion of the Party elite. So it's just tough for them, because the Party has the power.
But what can a Subjectivist say about that? Nothing.
Incorrect; he can say whatever he likes.
And nobody is duty-bound to care a whit what he likes.
What can you, an objectivist, say about it that will make any difference?
I can say, "Hey -- you're treating these people objectively unjustly. You are objectively a tyrant. And because that's objectively true, we can boycott them, undermine their authority, support those who are campaigning for justice, and even go to war, if the situation warrants it. But Subjectivism gives no basis to believe any injustice is occurring, and no reason for people to take action against it.
For tyranny is just as "right" as democracy, since both are only valued subjectively, and some "subject" does, in fact, value each.
Those who value democracy won't think tyranny is right.
Again, why does anybody else need to care? Subjectivism says they don't.
I don't think tyranny is right, and the fact that you say I'm not allowed to think it's wrong is of no interest to me, or the Chinese, I daresay.
I don't say you are "not allowed" to think you don't like it. I'm an objectivist -- so I believe you do. But as a Subjectivist, you have no way of explaining rationally why you think it's "wrong." All you can say is, "Me no like."
Again, the stupidity of Subjectivism. And its moral vacuity, of course.
But I'm not stupid enough to think that anyone would respect my moral values more if I said they were grounded on objective truth. It really would be stupid to expect that.
Moral Objectivists may be convinced to do so. Subjectivists never can.
IC wrote:
Statistically, what you "think" is wrong. Most don't.
Unless you provide some evidence for that being the case, I will assume you are lying.
Easy. Most of the world still lives under repressive regimes of various kinds -- China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, most of Africa, much of Central and South America... You should know that already. Use your head.
But it doesn't really change anything. Since all morality is subjective, so long as somebody values tyranny or democracy, who's got any right to complain?
People who have got something to complain about usually just complain about it; what's to stop them?
Justification. They have none, if they're Subjectivists. They can whine, but they cannot make the case to their associates or to the world that their oppressors are immoral. They can't assert that they hold the moral high ground. And they can't expect sympathy. Subjectivists have to believe they're not evil, and are not doing evil at all.
IC wrote:
You should read John Locke. Then you'd know why this is wrong. All human beings have a few basic rights: three, plausibly four. But a right to get whatever one "expects" is not among them. So the point carries: by Subjectivism, it's irrelevant who, or how many people, "expect" this or that. Values are all subjective, remember?
I assume you have read Locke.
Indeed I have.
Have you been afforded extra rights and privileges on the strength of it?
Not "extra." "Basic." And though you don't know it, it's exactly how you, too got your basic rights.
If my present day society is in a better state because it was founded by people who believed in objective moral values,
If you know history, they you know that's exactly right.
That does not, of course, mean there is any such thing as objective moral truth; it just means some people believe there is.
Sure. So now we've got to ask if those people were all just lucky fools, or whether they realized something we've lost. And all the more, because if they had believed Subjectivism, you'd have no grounds for rights at all.
However, as I've pointed out several times, if you're committed to Subjectivism, you still have the logical consequence of Moral Nihilism. I wonder why you're afraid to take it, though...