TRUMP AHEAD?

[Harbal]

I'm not "forgetting" anything. I'm just asking how Moral Subjectivism can tell anybody anything about Trump, or anyone else, for that matter.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my moral sensibilities tell me that there's something not right about having a lying scumbag running a country.

That may change. And if it does, Trump will become the moral choice, because subjectively,

It won't change, I can promise you that, but what if it did?

Meanwhile, by the light of Moral Subjectivism, he remains a perfectly moral option for everybody else,

Apparently not, according to some of the other comments on this thread.

So once again, Moral Subjectivism fails: it tells us nothing about D. Trump, or anybody else.

Well whatever morality you subscribe to seems to be telling you that Trump is an okay guy.

[Sculptor]

I'm not "forgetting" anything. I'm just asking how Moral Subjectivism can tell anybody anything about Trump, or anyone else, for that matter.

I 'm talking about your factual errors.

You forget. Facts are objective...values are subjective. So you say. And Moral Subjectivism? What does it tell us about Trump?

No. Facts are facts.
Moral are opinions.

There is a difference between "it is wrong to take an apple", and "an apple is a fruit."
I know all this is very hard for you, a religious person to understand.
Why don't you fuck off and caome back to me when you have figured out the difference.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my moral sensibilities tell me that there's something not right about having a lying scumbag running a country.

That may change. And if it does, Trump will become the moral choice, because subjectively,

It won't change, I can promise you that,

No, you can't. You're no prophet. And even if you could, what would that signify, but that you were blindly committed to a certain kind of twinge.

but what if it did?

Then you'd only be having another kind of twinge.

Meanwhile, by the light of Moral Subjectivism, he remains a perfectly moral option for everybody else,

Apparently not, according to some of the other comments on this thread.

That's only because they're actually not Subjectivists. Just like you're not. What they actually believe is that their most prized values (such as Trump-hating or abortion-supporting) are objective and compulsory for all right-thinking people, but that they don't want to have to honour objective morality in any other ways. They may not be outright hypocrites -- they could be naive, foolish, or irrational -- but it's very clear they're not consistent with themselves.

[Harbal]

Meanwhile, by the light of Moral Subjectivism, he remains a perfectly moral option for everybody else,

Apparently not, according to some of the other comments on this thread.

That's only because they're actually not Subjectivists. Just like you're not. What they actually believe is that their most prized values (such as Trump-hating or abortion-supporting) are objective and compulsory for all right-thinking people, but that they don't want to have to honour objective morality in any other ways. They may not be outright hypocrites.......

But you are a hypocrite for overlooking Trump's deplorable character just because he promised the religious right he would do something about abortion.

[commonsense]

Your entire question in reply to my post was included above. My response is also included above. What other "response" did you have in mind?

Look back to my earlier post where I provided a list of reasons why I think Trump is amoral and/or narcissistic. I cannot find a comment from you following the list I provided.

That's because if that's just a subjective list, then it's inconsequential. However, if it's objectively true that voting for Trump is bad, and you can produce evidence that I should believe that makes it morally bad, then you're not a Moral Subjectivist at all...you're just a selective Objectivist.

So which way do you want to play it: that you're a Subjectivist, so your list doesn't tell us anything, or that the list is telling, and you're an Objectivist?

I’m a situational objectivist.

I observed him looking narcissistically into an eclipse.

I observed him amorally using a Bible for a photo op.

[Immanuel Can]

Apparently not, according to some of the other comments on this thread.

That's only because they're actually not Subjectivists. Just like you're not. What they actually believe is that their most prized values (such as Trump-hating or abortion-supporting) are objective and compulsory for all right-thinking people, but that they don't want to have to honour objective morality in any other ways. They may not be outright hypocrites.......

But you are a hypocrite for overlooking Trump's deplorable character just because he promised the religious right he would do something about abortion.

Well, first of all, I'm not "overlooking" anything. I have no particular affinity or concern with Trump. He's a candidate in a country I don't live in, for an election I can't vote in. Why should I care who he is?

But secondly, you call him "deplorable." That's Objectivist. You're trying to say not just "Harbal presently finds Trump deplorable," but also, "IC should, too." But if Subjectivism were true, why should I be obligated to take your value assessment, or to become a bad kind of person if I did not?

That's how dumb Subjectivism is. Practiced consistently, it will not even give you warrant for an assessment of Trump at all. You'd have to convert to Objectivism to have any coherent way to do that.

Are you converting?

[Immanuel Can]

Look back to my earlier post where I provided a list of reasons why I think Trump is amoral and/or narcissistic. I cannot find a comment from you following the list I provided.

That's because if that's just a subjective list, then it's inconsequential. However, if it's objectively true that voting for Trump is bad, and you can produce evidence that I should believe that makes it morally bad, then you're not a Moral Subjectivist at all...you're just a selective Objectivist.

So which way do you want to play it: that you're a Subjectivist, so your list doesn't tell us anything, or that the list is telling, and you're an Objectivist?

I’m a situational objectivist.

That won't work. If it's "situational," then you're in no position to tell anybody about their "position," or what their moral "position" on it should be.

[Harbal]

That's only because they're actually not Subjectivists. Just like you're not. What they actually believe is that their most prized values (such as Trump-hating or abortion-supporting) are objective and compulsory for all right-thinking people, but that they don't want to have to honour objective morality in any other ways. They may not be outright hypocrites.......

But you are a hypocrite for overlooking Trump's deplorable character just because he promised the religious right he would do something about abortion.

Well, first of all, I'm not "overlooking" anything. I have no particular affinity or concern with Trump. He's a candidate in a country I don't live in, for an election I can't vote in. Why should I care who he is?

You seem to care enough to keep coming to his defence.

But secondly, you call him "deplorable." That's Objectivist. You're trying to say not just "Harbal presently finds Trump deplorable," but also, "IC should, too." But if Subjectivism were true, why should I be obligated to take your value assessment, or to become a bad kind of person if I did not?

Although I am fully aware that my assessment of Trump is no more than a personal opinion, it coincides with enough other personal opinions to be treated as though it were a matter of objective fact, even though I know it actually isn't. But if you insist that is "Objectivist", where do you suppose an atheist goes to get his Objectivist moral views?

That's how dumb Subjectivism is. Practiced consistently, it will not even give you warrant for an assessment of Trump at all. You'd have to convert to Objectivism to have any coherent way to do that.

Okay, give me some relevant objective moral facts on which to base a "proper" moral assessment of Trump.

[Immanuel Can]

But you are a hypocrite for overlooking Trump's deplorable character just because he promised the religious right he would do something about abortion.

Well, first of all, I'm not "overlooking" anything. I have no particular affinity or concern with Trump. He's a candidate in a country I don't live in, for an election I can't vote in. Why should I care who he is?

You seem to care enough to keep coming to his defence.

Ha. Show me where I did that, let alone where I "kept" doing it. You won't find I ever did.

But secondly, you call him "deplorable." That's Objectivist. You're trying to say not just "Harbal presently finds Trump deplorable," but also, "IC should, too." But if Subjectivism were true, why should I be obligated to take your value assessment, or to become a bad kind of person if I did not?

Although I am fully aware that my assessment of Trump is no more than a personal opinion, it coincides with enough other personal opinions to be treated as though it were a matter of objective fact, even though I know it actually isn't.

It isn't true, but falling for bandwagon fallacy makes it more likely to be true? Well, you'd better hope Trump doesn't get voted back in, because that would mean the majority then disagrees with you, and your "objective" moral assessment will vapourize, just as it did one term ago.

But if you insist that is "Objectivist", where do you suppose an atheist goes to get his Objectivist moral views?

He has no basis. If the twinges of his conscience lead him right, then he'll be a lucky boy to end up right about something. If his twinges ever mislead him, he'll be wrong. And all the while, he'll be irrational: because Atheism doesn't warrant any morality. Ask Dawkins. Ask Nietzsche.

That's how dumb Subjectivism is. Practiced consistently, it will not even give you warrant for an assessment of Trump at all. You'd have to convert to Objectivism to have any coherent way to do that.

Okay, give me some relevant objective moral facts on which to base a "proper" moral assessment of Trump.

That's not my concern. My concern is only to show that both you and I have to assume morality is objective, and can't get any concept of "morality" or any "moral" information by any other means. Subjectivism leaves us completely blind.

But there is another choice. As I've already pointed out, the road (or rather, pit) to Nihilism lies open as well. Anybody who's thoroughly committed to Subjectivism, and who follows through on its necessary reasoning, will end up there anyway.

[Harbal]

That's how dumb Subjectivism is. Practiced consistently, it will not even give you warrant for an assessment of Trump at all. You'd have to convert to Objectivism to have any coherent way to do that.

Okay, give me some relevant objective moral facts on which to base a "proper" moral assessment of Trump.

That's not my concern.

In other words, you can't.

My concern is only to show that both you and I have to assume morality is objective

But we both know it isn't, it's just that you can't admit it.

You have said absolutely nothing so far to show that objective moral truth is even possible, which is hardly surprising, because you are bending over backwards to avoid it.

Subjective morality is easy to demonstrate; I only have to give you my opinion on some moral issue or another to do it, but you can't demonstrate how objective morality is possible.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, give me some relevant objective moral facts on which to base a "proper" moral assessment of Trump.

That's not my concern.

In other words, you can't.

No. "It's not my concern" means I'm pointing out a fact about Subjectivism, not about politics.

You have said absolutely nothing so far to show that objective moral truth is even possible,

I've done better. I've shown that Subjectivism is impossible. It has no moral content.

[Harbal]

You have said absolutely nothing so far to show that objective moral truth is even possible,

I've done better. I've shown that Subjectivism is impossible. It has no moral content.

And I have shown that it does have moral content. The fact that the moral content could vary widely in quality is not in dispute, but it does have moral content. And you have still said absolutely nothing so far to show that objective moral truth is even possible, because you can't.

[commonsense]

That's because if that's just a subjective list, then it's inconsequential. However, if it's objectively true that voting for Trump is bad, and you can produce evidence that I should believe that makes it morally bad, then you're not a Moral Subjectivist at all...you're just a selective Objectivist.

So which way do you want to play it: that you're a Subjectivist, so your list doesn't tell us anything, or that the list is telling, and you're an Objectivist?

I’m a situational objectivist.

That won't work. If it's "situational," then you're in no position to tell anybody about their "position," or what their moral "position" on it should be.

Unless I am obliged to tell others what to believe or think, it works just fine.

[commonsense]

That's because if that's just a subjective list, then it's inconsequential. However, if it's objectively true that voting for Trump is bad, and you can produce evidence that I should believe that makes it morally bad, then you're not a Moral Subjectivist at all...you're just a selective Objectivist.

So which way do you want to play it: that you're a Subjectivist, so your list doesn't tell us anything, or that the list is telling, and you're an Objectivist?

I’m a situational objectivist.

That won't work. If it's "situational," then you're in no position to tell anybody about their "position," or what their moral "position" on it should be.

Why would anyone want to be in a position to tell anyone what their moral position should be???

[Immanuel Can]

I’m a situational objectivist.

That won't work. If it's "situational," then you're in no position to tell anybody about their "position," or what their moral "position" on it should be.

Unless I am obliged to tell others what to believe or think, it works just fine.

If you live by yourself, in a cave, then you don't need morality at all...neither objective or subjective. And whatever you decide to do, you can just do. There can be, for you, no moral dimension to life, because nobody but you counts.

But let one person enter the situation...a countryman, a neighbour, a wife, your children, a government, or God...anybody...and Subjectivism leaves us unable to decide what is right and wrong in the governance of our relations.