Philosophy Now Forum

Because most people in that society agree that it's morally wrong enough to put an end to it? But it's not objectively wrong, correct? It's just that some people or 51% of the people or most people don't like it. Some people could just be the people in power. You and IC never lived in the real worl...

Why report it if it's just an expression of someone's opinions? Because most people in that society agree that it's morally wrong enough to put an end to it? You and IC never lived in the real world before? The degree to which religion brainwashes people even today, so they live their lives blind a...

I think the dude legit doesn't even understand what subjectivism means. His brain simply can't process the concept.

:lol: You're not reading. My argument is that Subjectivism doesn't work at all, even on its own terms. And that's regardless of whether or not objective morality is even possible. But your argument was, once again, that subjectivism doesn't give us any information on objectivist terms. No, my argum...

Right. So was it moral or immoral? We can't say. Right. So was she moral or immoral? We can't say. You see? We have no moral information about either...and that's because of Subjectivism. It doesn't provide any moral insight. Therefore after 20k+ comments, your best argument seems to be that morali...

Well since people (or rather those 2-3 out of 10 people who do go against nature, which is too little on the long run) are also part of nature, and these "metaphysical insertions" are simply how these people think, it may be the case that this is still all part of, metaphorically speaking,...

Then if the "group" of Nazis says, "Jews must be exterminated," that's "moral"? :shock: Or even if a "person" does? :shock: And what if the "group" tells the "person" to kill Jews, and she refuses? Is she then "moral" (for sticki...

"Man contradicts Nature at every turn."
Like how?

I neither said that, nor even implied it. In fact, I said the opposite: that I don't need any reference to Objective Moralizing to make the point. Here's the point: what can Moral Subjectivism, even if we took it to be entirely true, teach anybody? It's about group morals, if a group agrees on them...

All that I've really said is that I've always elevated human thinking and myself to religious heights, mystified thinking and myself, even though we all know that there's absolutely no reason to. Now you reveal, I think, what you are really on about. Any position that someone takes that does not co...

Fine, you've chosen a religion. No, not quite. My perspectives came before I considered religion as such. All that I have really said is that there is a world of metaphysical impetus (idea, pattern, imposition) that comes through man and molds and determines his world. And I think there are (indeed...

Fine, you've chosen a religion.

No. The argument is that Moral Subjectivism fails to deliver any information at all. It fails on its own two legs, so to speak, and needs no input from Objectivism in order to fail. You mean it doesn't deliver any objective moral information at all. I neither said that, nor even implied it. In fact...

After 20k+ comments, his best argument seems to be that morality can't be subjective, because only objective morality can be morality. No. The argument is that Moral Subjectivism fails to deliver any information at all. It fails on its own two legs, so to speak, and needs no input from Objectivism ...

What if I take a brain scan of someone who is having abstract thoughts, and some brain regions light up on the scan?