My ideas about transgenderism

[Harbal]

but it makes no difference whatsoever. No matter how much you disparage the usefulness or efficacy of subjective morality, it gets you no closer to demonstrating there is any other kind.

I'm not even trying yet.

Well I think it is time that you did try. Nobody seems to be buying your views of subjective morality, so let's see if you can do any better at selling your objective morality. Perhaps this isn't the right thread for it, so I could ask you in a more appropriate one. I feel certain you are raring to go.

[Immanuel Can]

but it makes no difference whatsoever. No matter how much you disparage the usefulness or efficacy of subjective morality, it gets you no closer to demonstrating there is any other kind.

I'm not even trying yet.

Well I think it is time that you did try.

Sure. As soon as we've established the terrain of what is rationally possible.

The first thing we can see we can eliminate is subjectivism: for there is no way, even on its own terms, for it to be rational. It just makes no sense at all, as a description of morality: for it has no imperatives, no duties, no ethically-obligatory precepts to offer...only the temporary feelings of one person, with whom nobody else has, or can have, any duty to agree.

So it can't tell us anything about what morality is...assuming that morality is a thing. And so the next question we need to cover is, "Why not moral nihilism, then?" Why not believe that there actually are no moral precepts at all?

[Harbal]

I'm not even trying yet.

Well I think it is time that you did try.

Sure. As soon as we've established the terrain of what is rationally possible.

The first thing we can see we can eliminate is subjectivism: for there is no way, even on its own terms, for it to be rational. It just makes no sense at all, as a description of morality: for it has no imperatives, no duties, no ethically-obligatory precepts to offer...only the temporary feelings of one person, with whom nobody else has, or can have, any duty to agree.

So it can't tell us anything about what morality is...assuming that morality is a thing. And so the next question we need to cover is, "Why not moral nihilism, then?" Why not believe that there actually are no moral precepts at all?

Fine. I've said all I have to say about why I think morality is based on subjective human emotion, so I am happy to put it aside and concentrate on any alternative view of morality you want to talk about. Even so, I have no opinion on nihilism, and even less interest, so I hope we don't have to dwell on that for too long. To be honest, my eagerness to be shown an actual absolute moral truth is getting the better of me, and I'm not sure how much attention I have to spare for anything else.

[Immanuel Can]

Well I think it is time that you did try.

Sure. As soon as we've established the terrain of what is rationally possible.

The first thing we can see we can eliminate is subjectivism: for there is no way, even on its own terms, for it to be rational. It just makes no sense at all, as a description of morality: for it has no imperatives, no duties, no ethically-obligatory precepts to offer...only the temporary feelings of one person, with whom nobody else has, or can have, any duty to agree.

So it can't tell us anything about what morality is...assuming that morality is a thing. And so the next question we need to cover is, "Why not moral nihilism, then?" Why not believe that there actually are no moral precepts at all?

Fine. I've said all I have to say about why I think morality is based on subjective human emotion, so I am happy to put it aside and concentrate on any alternative view of morality you want to talk about.

Well, until we get the subjective thing out of the way, we're not going to get anywhere: because anybody who persists in believing it is refusing to see the evidence of his own reason, the plain testimony of his own good mind.

Fortunately, we can do that, without having to appeal either to moral objectivism or moral nihilism. They have their own challenges, to be sure: but incoherence isn't one of them. It is, for subjectivism.

So to nihilism, then. Why shouldn't you believe it? It's at least rational, whereas subjectivism is not.

P.S. -- Would you have any objection to us moving this discussion back to the relevant thread on objective/subjective morality? It seems unfair to clog this one up with a topic that's open elsewhere, especially when we can easily move it, does it not?

[Harbal]

So to nihilism, then. Why shouldn't you believe it? It's at least rational, whereas subjectivism is not.

What do you mean by believe it? It is just a view, isn't it? If nothing matters to you, you are a nihilist, as far as I understand it. Lots of things matter to me, so I am not a nihilist. That's all I can think of to say about it. Can't you just say what you have to say about it, and then we can move straight on to the main event.

[Immanuel Can]

So to nihilism, then. Why shouldn't you believe it? It's at least rational, whereas subjectivism is not.

What do you mean by believe it? It is just a view, isn't it?

I mean, why shoudn't we believe that there is no such legitimate thing as morality? That's "moral nihilism." Given the consequences of subjectivism, it seems the obvious next step for a moral skeptic.

If nothing matters to you, you are a nihilist, as far as I understand it.

That would be a total kind of nihilism. Moral nihilst don't think nothing matters; they only think that morality is a fake. They needn't be skeptical about science, or existence, or many other things...a moral nihliist is only somebody like Nietzsche, who thinks that moral values are, in some sense, trumped up by those who try to control others, and fail to have any real moral authority or value.


P.S. -- Please check my late-addition P.S. on the previous message, and let me know if that's good with you, too.

[Harbal]

So to nihilism, then. Why shouldn't you believe it? It's at least rational, whereas subjectivism is not.

What do you mean by believe it? It is just a view, isn't it?

I mean, why shoudn't we believe that there is no such legitimate thing as morality?

Morality is the set of standards that dictate what is right and wrong in terms of behaviour and beliefs. Not my words, I found them online, but I broadly agree with the definition. People do have such standards, and I think standards are crucial in enabling society to function, so there is undeniably such a thing as morality, and it is, in my opinion, legitimate.

That's "moral nihilism." Given the consequences of subjectivism, it seems the obvious next step for a moral skeptic.

Well I am not going to put up an argument in favour of moral nihilism.

Moral nihilst don't think nothing matters; they only think that morality is a fake. They needn't be skeptical about science, or existence, or many other things...a moral nihliist is only somebody like Nietzsche, who thinks that moral values are, in some sense, trumped up by those who try to control others, and fail to have any real moral authority or value.

I don't think morality is fake, I am not sceptical about science, and I am not like Nietzsche. I really don't know why we are doing this when neither of us is advocating nihilism.

P.S. -- Please check my late-addition P.S. on the previous message, and let me know if that's good with you, too.

Yes, fine, I'll see you there.

[Consul]

I therefore do believe that there are such things as female brains and male brains but they do not, on average, differ in innate intelligence.

I would now like to talk about intersexuality. Most people will probably think of confused genitalia when they hear the word intersex. However, I think that the broadest definition of intersexuality is when any part of a persons body does not match the gender of other parts of their body. I therefore believe that transgenderism (where the brain is a different gender to the rest of the body) is a form of intersexuality.

There are brains of females and brains of males, but there are no female or male brains, in the sense that our brains are intrinsically sexed, and that there is a distinct category "cerebral/encephalic sex".

See: Lise Eliot: You don’t have a male or female brain – the more brains scientists study, the weaker the evidence for sex differences


"Intersexuality" is an umbrella term for disorders of sex development (DSDs) defined as "congenital conditions in which development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex is atypical." There is no mentioning of a "cerebral/encephalic sex"—not even any implicit mentioning, because the anatomy referred to in "anatomical sex" doesn't include brain anatomy!

See: Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders

The term "intersexuality" is misleading, because it wrongly suggests that all intersexuals are neither female nor male, or both female and male. Actually, given the biological definition of sex in terms of gametes/gonades, the only intersexuals who are not classifiable as either female or male are the very few ones lacking both ovaries (ovarian tissue) and testicles (testicular tissue), and the very few ones having both ovaries (ovarian tissue) and testicles (testicular tissue). These people are a tiny minority among the tiny minority of intersexuals.

An intersexual female or male can be transsexual or "transgender". For example, a male person with some form of DSD can desire to be a woman. However, nearly all transsexual persons have no form of DSD, and thus aren't intersexual.

Transsexuality isn't a form of intersexuality, since this would mean that having some form of DSD is a necessary condition of being transsexual—which it is not!