1 You did agree there's no inconsistency in saying there are no moral facts, while maintaining X is morally right/wrong. I pointed out where you said it earlier. Can't be bothered to do it again.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:52 pmI don't, of course. They're utterly inconsistent.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:07 amIf you agree there's no inconsistency between the claims 'there are no moral facts' and 'X is morally wrong' - then this discussion is over.
Expectation as to the effect of making an assertion - for example, belief that people should agree with it - is not relevant here.
So the subjectivist has no basis for suggesting anybody else OUGHT to BE a subjectivist. So why are you still arguing, if not because you expect to get some effect from making the assertion?
You can't have any rational basis for your moral claim, for if you did, you'd be a moral objectivist. So it's not bad if we should happen to choose to disbelieve you, and happen to prefer objective morality. That's not objectively immoral, you have to believe.
2 I'm arguing that moral objectivism is incorrect, because there are no moral facts. But I don't maintain anyone else ought to be a moral subjectivist. That's your straw man. The claim that there are no moral facts is not a moral claim at all, as I'm sure you realise. It's a factual claim with a truth-value.
3 In sum, you have no evidence to support your moral objectivism, so you're pissing about with diversionary flak, as usual.