Skepdick

[-1-]

Whom does the input by Skepdick remind you of in the dialogue below? It certainly reminds me of somebody, if I could only put my tongue on it...

Watch this:

- argument 1: assumes and suggests that opposing partner has a lesser or more personally involved motivation to argue his point

- argument 2: tries to point out that consequentialist arguments are subjective... which is the point of view of the opposing arguer, so Skepdick actually agrees with his opponent, but with a tone as if he disagreed.

- argument 3: Closing with two questions that are unanswerable, inconsequential, and indifferent as far as the topic is concerned

Fair enough. I think the great danger of moral objectivism is that people can think their own moral opinions are facts and therefore undeniable. It leads to inquisitions and persecutions, abortion practitioners being murdered, homosexuals being thrown off tall buildings, and so on.

Would it be fair to say that your entire argument is agenda-driven? You have simply chosen to classify morality as "subjective" because in your mind this would lead to less abortionists being murdered; less homsexuals being thrown off buildings etc.

That is - once the "self-righteous" recognize their moral assertions are "just opinions" we ought to see less persecution and murders.

The problem with utilitarianism and consequentialism is that what actually is 'the greatest good for the greatest number', or 'a good consequence' is and can only ever be a subjective moral judgement - never a fact.

Yet just in the previous paragraph you were making a consequentialist argument. You were warning of the dangers of moral objectivism by pointing out its undesirable consequences: persecution and murder.

Surely, this begs a question: Why is the opinion of a moral subjectivist any less dangerous than the opinion of moral objectivist?

Why is your opinion better?

"Auf dem Jagen", by Johann Strauss

[Skepdick]

- argument 2: tries to point out that consequentialist arguments are subjective... which is the point of view of the opposing arguer, so Skepdick actually agrees with his opponent, but with a tone as if he disagreed.

Is that what really happened?

From where I was looking it seemed as if the opposing arguer used a consequentialist argument to justify their own position while also arguing against consequentialism.

Do as I say not as I do! It's open season...

- argument 3: Closing with two questions that are unanswerable, inconsequential, and indifferent as far as the topic is concerned

The topic is morality. Claiming that 'moral objectivism' is more dangerous than 'moral subjectivism' is an empirically testable/verifiable (e.g objective!) moral claim. It's answerable.

None are so blind as those who cannot see

[-1-]

None are so blind as those who cannot see

What about those who can see? Do you have a nice flippant maxim for those, too?

[-1-]

The topic is morality. Claiming that 'moral objectivism' is more dangerous than 'moral subjectivism' is an empirically testable/verifiable (e.g objective!) moral claim. It's answerable.

How do you test the dangers lying in objectivism vs subjectivism? Both moral, of course.

- have you a body count?

- a metric of loss?

- a metric of dangerrrr?

Has a moral philosophy ever killed anyone? Not the interpretation or the acceptance of it in practice, but the philosophy itself. Which moral objectivism and pessimism is. I hardly think that any philosophical thought or direction have ever been blamed for actual loss. Other than the odd suicide, of course.

But of course these are all academic questions. I will write elsewhere what your next step will be, Skepdick, and we will compare my expected to the actual.

[Skepdick]

The topic is morality. Claiming that 'moral objectivism' is more dangerous than 'moral subjectivism' is an empirically testable/verifiable (e.g objective!) moral claim. It's answerable.

How do you test the dangers lying in objectivism vs subjectivism? Both moral, of course.

- have you a body count?

- a metric of loss?

- a metric of dangerrrr?

Has a moral philosophy ever killed anyone? Not the interpretation or the acceptance of it in practice, but the philosophy itself. Which moral objectivism and pessimism is. I hardly think that any philosophical thought or direction have ever been blamed for actual loss. Other than the odd suicide, of course.

But of course these are all academic questions. I will write elsewhere what your next step will be, Skepdick, and we will compare my expected to the actual.

Isn't that precisely the point I was making in my counter argument?

To make the claim X is "more dangerous" than Y is to imply there is a relative metric of sorts.

That is sufficient for testability. That is the kind of question science can answer.

IF the person making the argument proposes the metric they associate with the word "danger" with. It is testable - if they want it to be.

Only, I imagine testable claims are a danger to academic philosophy ?

[Arising_uk]

Why do you keep swapping niks?

[Skepdick]

Why do you keep swapping niks?

Time management.

I am in front of the computer 90% of my day. I seem to login on auto-pilot in between tasks, which derails my flow.

So I kill the account to temporarily disengage during busy weeks.

[Arising_uk]

Like I said, addictive.

[Skepdick]

Like I said, addictive.

It helps nothing that I've optimised my workflow for ease-of-access. Automated password management.

https://xkcd.com/386/

[jayjacobus]

Some people see the light.

But what do they see; light rays? No, you can't see light waves. They are too small, invisible, only energy.

So what do they actually see? light in the brain cannot be found.

You can't see what cannot be found but sometimes you can if you see the light.

Perhaps, some people on this thread are blind but one is not.