Harbal wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 6:12 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 5:45 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 5:21 pm
He's an obnoxious person, and if you can't see that for yourself, it certainly throws your judgement into question.
Objectively "obnoxious," or only "subjectively"?
Just obnoxious.
It has to be one or the other. There's no third option. So which is it?
IC wrote:Harbal wrote:So you find his "faith" convincing, do you?
I'm not the one claiming to know
And not even willing to have your opinion known, it would seem.
Quite the contrary: I'm not renowned for my reticence, as you know. But I'm asking about
your view.
IC wrote:Harbal wrote:I don't believe there is any such thing as "objectively moral", as you already know.
Right. So how can you argue that Trump is "obnoxious," or "amoral," or "immoral," or "bad," or "fanatical,"
I'm not arguing, I'm simply telling you.
You can't. If Subjectivism is true, you've got nothing to say morally to anybody,-- even to yourself, since you can change your mind. The most you can be saying is, "Trump, for now, makes Harbal feel obnoxiousness." That's extremely wimpy, but that's the limit of what Subjectivism will allow.
IC wrote:Harbal wrote:I am not a defender of it, I am just someone who knows that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.
That's Subjectivism.
You do love your labels, don't you?
When they're right? They're very useful. And I marvel that you're suddenly so keen to disavow this one, when you've defended Subjectivism for page after page...can it be that you didn't ever really believe anything you said?
IC wrote:Harbal wrote:I think there is a lot morally wrong with Trump,...
Yes, I can see that: but that's not the question. The question is HOW?
You don't believe that moral assessments are objective at all. Yet you say there's "wrong" in him. What does that word, "wrong" imply, except that you think Trump is objectively morally reprehensible?
Yes, I think Trump is morally reprehensible,
Objectively morally reprehensible, or subjectively?
And whence the duty you wish to compel on me to agree with that assessment?
I'm not placing any duty on you, I'm just wondering why you can't see it for yourself.
Oh. So you're saying I "should" (another objective moral assessment) and I'm "failing to see it," which you are trying to imply is morally wrong...objectively.
You're caught in your own trap, Sport. I hate to point it out, but there it is.
When being caught in a trap feels exactly the same as not being caught in a trap, I don't suppose it matters much.
Well, if you depart all logic, then I guess, yes...it might not matter to you. But if you think, as I do, that people who offer arguments should be consistent and make sense, then it ought to matter, even if, in this case, you want to pretend it doesn't.
You can see it. You're no fool. You cannot condemn Trump, or me, or anybody, if you are not appealing to an objective moral assessment. And yet, that's what you're trying desperately to do, even while trying to disavow it. You're caught.