Philosophy Now Forum

The participants were the entire German nation. So I would say that persecuting and killing Jews was a negative. They would have done much better by not doing it. Well, that's what you would say. So would I. But Hitler would not. The Nazis would not. And what about the other cases...for there are m...

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 6:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 6:40 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 6:33 pm

What question?

Oh. You were just unilaterally declaring in favour of extramarital sexual congress? Why did you want to bring that up here?

That's just the way I am.

Since you weren't asking me for any reason, it seems rather gratuitous...and out of context...

If two people, of either opposite or same sex, engage in sexual activity and are not married to each other, or ever intend to be married to each other, or even intend to see each other again, and have no conflicting emotion commitments to anyone else, then they are not doing anything morally wrong....

You have done what you usually do. You have replaced the situation I gave you with something completely different. So you didn't mean to imply sex with somebody you're not married to? You meant something "completely different"? :shock: "Completely"? What did you mean, then? If t...

Moralities are 'objectively moral' if they produce some benefit for the participants. That's problematic. Killing Jews produced a decided advantage for Hitler. It gave him a scapegoat for all Germany's problems, and a rallying point for the resentment of the people. The gulags were a benefit to Sta...

I said nothing about extramarital sex, or cheating on a spouse, I said sex outside of marriage, which means sex between two people who are not married to each other. Oh. You mean that you think it's different if the two of you weren't married YET. And yet, it's exactly the same act. I have no idea ...

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 5:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2024 5:09 pm
No Subjectivist, I suspect, would be happy...........

The happiness of Subjectivists, whoever they are, is no concern of mine.

Right. That's what a Subjectivist would say. His present happiness determines everything.

As far as I am concerned, "objectively moral", is a contradiction in terms. Prove that, the way I've showed that Subjectivism is irrational. I've explained why I think objective moral truth is an impossibility, I disagree. I've seen you give no reasons at all. You just say that you prefer...

This is a standard dictionary definition for morality: You really need to read your own definition. It says, "standards." A "standard" means something fixed and reliable, something common to multiple humans, a thing by which other things can be measured. Here's the definition of...

Can you explain what you mean by that? Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it doesn't mean there are many 'moralities' that are all objectively moral . As far as I am concerned, "o...

Can you explain what you mean by that? Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it doesn't mean there are many 'moralities' that are all objectively moral . It just tells us that some people...

You have redefined the words, "morality" and "moral", to your own liking, Not at all. All I've asked of those words is the bare minimum: that when we use those words, we use them of a view that gives at least one person one piece of moral information. And obviously, Subjectivism...

'Objective morality' doesn't necessarily mean 'universal morality'. There can be many objective moralities. Can you explain what you mean by that? Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it...

It seems clear that you don't really understand what morality actually is, and you are confusing it with something else. Oh, I'm quite clear. But you can't even give me one moral precept Subjectivism would rationalize for even one person. That's pretty obvious evidence that Subjectivism has nothing...

Well, the Bible is 66 books...a library of different literary forms, composed by different authors, over a period of about a millennium and a half. And the "establishing" of any part of it has to happen by way of the appropriate test -- which is quite different for each kind of literary f...