TRUMP AHEAD?

[Age]

Well, okay, then. But it's not clear why anybody should adopt any particular attitude to Trump based on your ick over what you call his "character" or his "judgment." Those are moral concepts, and you've insisted they're all merely subjective. If some others, or some swing voters, experience him as of sterling character and impeccable judgment, a Subjectivist has nothing more legitimately to say. There is no objective basis for a critique, then.

Yes again. My subjective ick factor informs my vote. Everyone else can vote according to their personal preferences.

Fair enough. That's what a Subjectivist should say.

But you are showing and proving that you are a so-called "subjectivist" here "Immanuel can".

Why do you imagine or believe that you are not?

How could you be so delusional here?

At least you're being rational in terms of what you say you believe the nature of morality is. I can't argue with that.

[Age]

You forgot. A Subjectivist has no reason to expect the word "bad" to convey anything. Anything that is the "judgment" made by another "subjective observer" has to be every bit as "good" or "bad" as your own.

That's Subjectivism.

Yes. We seem to be at an impasse. Perhaps I am not understanding you. I don’t know how many different ways I can say that as a subjectivist I don’t concern myself with, nor attempt to influence in any way, the behavior of others, including the act of voting. The rest of the world is entitled to hold a singularly subjective morality unlike mine or accidentally like mine.

And I applaud you on your consistency.

However, the rest of the Subjectivists here aren't so consistent, apparently. They want us to think Americans shouldn't vote for Trump, as though some sort of moral negative attaches to the "act of voting" of others. In other words, they slide over to Objectivism when it's something they really care about, but when they want to avoid moral responsibility themselves, they slide right back to Subjectivism.

Not that you would ever answer this clarifying question, because you do not want to/are not capable of being just open and honest here, but how do you define 'Objectivism', and, 'Subjectivsm', exactly, and why do you use capital 'o' and capital 's'?

At least you don't do that. Good for you. Or, at least, not worse than anybody else for you.

[Harbal]

Where is the code that says "elections" count?

I imagine it's written in the law somewhere.

You "imagine"? And you "imagine" that the same law upon which elections depend says elections "must" be respected?

I'm not going to make a guess at how that is meant to interpreted.

That's circular. There has to be a better, independent reason that elections are legitimate, or all you've done is essentially say, "You've got to respect the government, because the government says you do."

No, it's the Bible you are supposed to respect because the Bible says you have to. I think people respect elections because they prefer democracy to the alternatives.

I never said morality didn't exist, I just said objective moral truth doesn't exist.

So it's not an objective moral truth that elections deserve respecting. That's what you have to believe, based on that claim.

There is no such thing as objective moral truth. It is probably an objective truth that most people prefer living under a system where they are allowed to vote for the people who govern them.

You've lapsed again into a pure power argument: it goes, be nice to police, or they'll hurt you. Not that it's right to do so. Not that it's moral to do so. Just do so so that you don't get beaten, or jailed, or whatever. Nice.

We can hardly expect the protection of the law, and at the same time refuse to accept its authority.

It would be considerably more dangerous for me to stay where I am and yell, "I love Margaret Thatcher".

Take your pick. Lots of people do love Thatcher. But you're ducking the point by changing the example, because you know darn well how right I am about that. You wouldn't last five minutes..

But what is your point?

In fact, I don't really know what point you are trying to make in general.

[Immanuel Can]

That's circular. There has to be a better, independent reason that elections are legitimate, or all you've done is essentially say, "You've got to respect the government, because the government says you do."

I think people respect elections because they prefer democracy to the alternatives.

Some do, some don't, clearly. If everybody "preferred" democracy, then we'd have nothing but democracies. But the more important point is this: Subjectivism gives us no basis upon which to believe that democracy is any more moral or obligatory for anybody than its more common competitors, like Communism or other totalitarian systems.

I never said morality didn't exist, I just said objective moral truth doesn't exist.

So it's not an objective moral truth that elections deserve respecting. That's what you have to believe, based on that claim.

There is no such thing as objective moral truth. It is probably an objective truth that most people prefer living under a system where they are allowed to vote for the people who govern them.

It's probably not, statistically. But even if the "proles" DID prefer democracy, what moral principle informs us that the "proles" have any right to expect it? According to Subjectivism, there is no reason why I, as dictator, cannot tyrannize as many people as I like -- who says I owe them anything?

You've lapsed again into a pure power argument: it goes, be nice to police, or they'll hurt you. Not that it's right to do so. Not that it's moral to do so. Just do so so that you don't get beaten, or jailed, or whatever. Nice.

We can hardly expect the protection of the law, and at the same time refuse to accept its authority.

What we "expect" has nothing to do with morality, obviously, if there are no moral truths. So your argument boils down to "I have to knuckle-under to the law, because I want the benefits I get from cowering. That's another power argument, not a moral one, obviously: the government gets power because otherwise it will threaten me with the removal of my benefits...but not because the government is morally right, or that my capitulation to it is in any way noble or warranted. It works because I'm a coward.

It would be considerably more dangerous for me to stay where I am and yell, "I love Margaret Thatcher".

Take your pick. Lots of people do love Thatcher. But you're ducking the point by changing the example, because you know darn well how right I am about that. You wouldn't last five minutes..

But what is your point?

English Common Law and Sharia are two very different things, duking it out in your country. Those are two radically opposed moral codes, and people on both sides feel totally committed to them. Subjectively, each is felt every bit as strongly as the other...perhaps Sharia is even more ardently advocated: I don't see any rallies in the street for English Common Law, do you?

So subjectively, you will end up being under Sharia...especially if you go to a place like certain districts of Birmingham or Rotherham. And if you don't respect their terms there, you'll end up beaten or dead. That's a power argument. And these are subjectively-passionate people: maybe you are, too. But what's missing? What's missing is a universal code capable of saying whether English Common Law or Sharia is the genuinely moral option. Your "preferences" won't save you from that choice. Unless you can appeal to some greater principle, you can't even know whether you should affirm your English Common Law preferences, or their Sharia ones. Subjectively, they're equal.

So my point is very plain: absent an objective moral rule to arbitrate the case, you have no way of really knowing which option actually deserves to win.

[Harbal]

That's circular. There has to be a better, independent reason that elections are legitimate, or all you've done is essentially say, "You've got to respect the government, because the government says you do."

I think people respect elections because they prefer democracy to the alternatives.

Some do, some don't, clearly. If everybody "preferred" democracy, then we'd have nothing but democracies.

Do you think the Chinese people don't have democracy because they don't want it, then?

But the more important point is this: Subjectivism gives us no basis upon which to believe that democracy is any more moral or obligatory for anybody than its more common competitors, like Communism or other totalitarian systems.

If people prefer democracy, and I really think most people do, then democracy is what they are going to want. What's the the problem?

There is no such thing as objective moral truth. It is probably an objective truth that most people prefer living under a system where they are allowed to vote for the people who govern them.

It's probably not, statistically.

Why probably not?

But even if the "proles" DID prefer democracy, what moral principle informs us that the "proles" have any right to expect it? According to Subjectivism

I'm not aware that believing morality is a matter of objective truth entitles or gives anyone any extra rights about what they are entitled to expect. Do you have any entitlements that your atheist neighbours don't have?

there is no reason why I, as dictator, cannot tyrannize as many people as I like -- who says I owe them anything?

And are populations that believe in moral objectivity somehow immune to falling under tyrannical dictatorships?

We can hardly expect the protection of the law, and at the same time refuse to accept its authority.

What we "expect" has nothing to do with morality, obviously, if there are no moral truths.

I am prepared to accept the protection of the law regardless of whether my expectations have something to do with morality or not, so it isn't a problem.

So your argument boils down to "I have to knuckle-under to the law, because I want the benefits I get from cowering.

Are you being serious?

That's another power argument, not a moral one, obviously: the government gets power because otherwise it will threaten me with the removal of my benefits...but not because the government is morally right, or that my capitulation to it is in any way noble or warranted. It works because I'm a coward.

You seem to have abandoned all concern for being taken seriously.

English Common Law and Sharia are two very different things, duking it out in your country. Those are two radically opposed moral codes, and people on both sides feel totally committed to them. Subjectively, each is felt every bit as strongly as the other...perhaps Sharia is even more ardently advocated: I don't see any rallies in the street for English Common Law, do you?

Why are you gabbling on about Sharia law?

So subjectively, you will end up being under Sharia...especially if you go to a place like certain districts of Birmingham or Rotherham. And if you don't respect their terms there, you'll end up beaten or dead. That's a power argument. And these are subjectively-passionate people: maybe you are, too. But what's missing? What's missing is a universal code capable of saying whether English Common Law or Sharia is the genuinely moral option. Your "preferences" won't save you from that choice. Unless you can appeal to some greater principle, you can't even know whether you should affirm your English Common Law preferences, or their Sharia ones. Subjectively, they're equal.

So my point is very plain: absent an objective moral rule to arbitrate the case, you have no way of really knowing which option actually deserves to win.

And that is an argument in support of what, exactly?

[Immanuel Can]

I think people respect elections because they prefer democracy to the alternatives.

Some do, some don't, clearly. If everybody "preferred" democracy, then we'd have nothing but democracies.

Do you think the Chinese people don't have democracy because they don't want it, then?

They don't have democracy because SOMEBODY doesn't want them to have it. Or rather, "somebodies."

But what can a Subjectivist say about that? Nothing. For tyranny is just as "right" as democracy, since both are only valued subjectively, and some "subject" does, in fact, value each.

Again, the stupidity of Subjectivism. And its moral vacuity, of course.

But the more important point is this: Subjectivism gives us no basis upon which to believe that democracy is any more moral or obligatory for anybody than its more common competitors, like Communism or other totalitarian systems.

If people prefer democracy, and I really think most people do,

Statistically, what you "think" is wrong. Most don't.

But it doesn't really change anything. Since all morality is subjective, so long as somebody values tyranny or democracy, who's got any right to complain?

But even if the "proles" DID prefer democracy, what moral principle informs us that the "proles" have any right to expect it? According to Subjectivism

I'm not aware that believing morality is a matter of objective truth entitles or gives anyone any extra rights about what they are entitled to expect.

You should read John Locke. Then you'd know why this is wrong. All human beings have a few basic rights: three, plausibly four. But a right to get whatever one "expects" is not among them. So the point carries: by Subjectivism, it's irrelevant who, or how many people, "expect" this or that. Values are all subjective, remember?

there is no reason why I, as dictator, cannot tyrannize as many people as I like -- who says I owe them anything?

And are populations that believe in moral objectivity somehow immune to falling under tyrannical dictatorships?

Those that do know what the objective human rights are (or rather, those that used to) are the democracies. And while even they are not immune to being corrupted by way of forgetting those basic rights, they have much, much more resilience than those polities in which human rights are simply unknown...and a better history, as well.

We can hardly expect the protection of the law, and at the same time refuse to accept its authority.

What we "expect" has nothing to do with morality, obviously, if there are no moral truths.

I am prepared to accept the protection of the law regardless of whether my expectations have something to do with morality or not [/quote]
Not the point. Of course you are. But the law that you think "protects" you can just as easily be used to strip you of all those vaunted subjective preferences of yours. And most often, that's exactly what happens. The authorities simply deny them to the people: and people who don't even believe rights come from anything are not well-positioned even to diagnose the evil being done to them, let alone find grounds to protest or fight it.

So your argument boils down to "I have to knuckle-under to the law, because I want the benefits I get from cowering.

Are you being serious?

Yep.

That's another power argument, not a moral one, obviously: the government gets power because otherwise it will threaten me with the removal of my benefits...but not because the government is morally right, or that my capitulation to it is in any way noble or warranted. It works because I'm a coward.

You seem to have abandoned all concern for being taken seriously.

Rather, I think you're afraid to face the truth.

So subjectively, you will end up being under Sharia...especially if you go to a place like certain districts of Birmingham or Rotherham. And if you don't respect their terms there, you'll end up beaten or dead. That's a power argument. And these are subjectively-passionate people: maybe you are, too. But what's missing? What's missing is a universal code capable of saying whether English Common Law or Sharia is the genuinely moral option. Your "preferences" won't save you from that choice. Unless you can appeal to some greater principle, you can't even know whether you should affirm your English Common Law preferences, or their Sharia ones. Subjectively, they're equal.

So my point is very plain: absent an objective moral rule to arbitrate the case, you have no way of really knowing which option actually deserves to win.

And that is an argument in support of what, exactly?

For the necessity of a meta-moral, necessarily a universal and objective one, enable us to arbitrate among conflicting human "moralities." I'm also pointing out the total failure of Subjectivism to deliver any such thing. Subjectivism can't even tell us which "side," in the aggravated divisions with your own country, we should be defending.

[Harbal]

Some do, some don't, clearly. If everybody "preferred" democracy, then we'd have nothing but democracies.

Do you think the Chinese people don't have democracy because they don't want it, then?

They don't have democracy because SOMEBODY doesn't want them to have it. Or rather, "somebodies."

And do you suppose those somebodies asked the Chinese people whether they were subjectivists before they decided not to let them have democracy?

But what can a Subjectivist say about that? Nothing.

Incorrect; he can say whatever he likes. What can you, an objectivist, say about it that will make any difference?

For tyranny is just as "right" as democracy, since both are only valued subjectively, and some "subject" does, in fact, value each.

Those who value democracy won't think tyranny is right. I don't think tyranny is right, and the fact that you say I'm not allowed to think it's wrong is of no interest to me, or the Chinese, I daresay.

Again, the stupidity of Subjectivism. And its moral vacuity, of course.

But I'm not stupid enough to think that anyone would respect my moral values more if I said they were grounded on objective truth. It really would be stupid to expect that.

If people prefer democracy, and I really think most people do,

Statistically, what you "think" is wrong. Most don't.

Unless you provide some evidence for that being the case, I will assume you are lying.

But it doesn't really change anything. Since all morality is subjective, so long as somebody values tyranny or democracy, who's got any right to complain?

People who have got something to complain about usually just complain about it; what's to stop them?

I'm not aware that believing morality is a matter of objective truth entitles or gives anyone any extra rights about what they are entitled to expect.

You should read John Locke. Then you'd know why this is wrong. All human beings have a few basic rights: three, plausibly four. But a right to get whatever one "expects" is not among them. So the point carries: by Subjectivism, it's irrelevant who, or how many people, "expect" this or that. Values are all subjective, remember?

I assume you have read Locke. Have you been afforded extra rights and privileges on the strength of it?

And are populations that believe in moral objectivity somehow immune to falling under tyrannical dictatorships?

Those that do know what the objective human rights are (or rather, those that used to) are the democracies. And while even they are not immune to being corrupted by way of forgetting those basic rights, they have much, much more resilience than those polities in which human rights are simply unknown...and a better history, as well.

If my present day society is in a better state because it was founded by people who believed in objective moral values, then I am glad they did believe in them, and I don't have a problem with it. That does not, of course, mean there is any such thing as objective moral truth; it just means some people believe there is.

I am prepared to accept the protection of the law regardless of whether my expectations have something to do with morality or not

Not the point.

Of course it is the point, which is, you don't get more protection from the law just because you believe in objective morality; it makes no difference at all.


I really can't see how your believing in objective morality makes you any better off. All it seems to do is make you think that what you say about morality carries more weight, but what good is that doing you when nobody takes any notice?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think the Chinese people don't have democracy because they don't want it, then?

They don't have democracy because SOMEBODY doesn't want them to have it. Or rather, "somebodies."

And do you suppose those somebodies asked the Chinese people whether they were subjectivists before they decided not to let them have democracy?

If they weren't asked, then by Subjectivism's lights, nobody has an actual duty to ask them. And now, whatever happened, the Chinese people have no grounds for protest. They aren't being treated unjustly, by the subjective opinion of the Party elite. So it's just tough for them, because the Party has the power.

But what can a Subjectivist say about that? Nothing.

Incorrect; he can say whatever he likes.

And nobody is duty-bound to care a whit what he likes.

What can you, an objectivist, say about it that will make any difference?

I can say, "Hey -- you're treating these people objectively unjustly. You are objectively a tyrant. And because that's objectively true, we can boycott them, undermine their authority, support those who are campaigning for justice, and even go to war, if the situation warrants it. But Subjectivism gives no basis to believe any injustice is occurring, and no reason for people to take action against it.

For tyranny is just as "right" as democracy, since both are only valued subjectively, and some "subject" does, in fact, value each.

Those who value democracy won't think tyranny is right.

Again, why does anybody else need to care? Subjectivism says they don't.

I don't think tyranny is right, and the fact that you say I'm not allowed to think it's wrong is of no interest to me, or the Chinese, I daresay.

I don't say you are "not allowed" to think you don't like it. I'm an objectivist -- so I believe you do. But as a Subjectivist, you have no way of explaining rationally why you think it's "wrong." All you can say is, "Me no like."

Again, the stupidity of Subjectivism. And its moral vacuity, of course.

But I'm not stupid enough to think that anyone would respect my moral values more if I said they were grounded on objective truth. It really would be stupid to expect that.

Moral Objectivists may be convinced to do so. Subjectivists never can.

Statistically, what you "think" is wrong. Most don't.

Unless you provide some evidence for that being the case, I will assume you are lying.

Easy. Most of the world still lives under repressive regimes of various kinds -- China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, most of Africa, much of Central and South America... You should know that already. Use your head.

But it doesn't really change anything. Since all morality is subjective, so long as somebody values tyranny or democracy, who's got any right to complain?

People who have got something to complain about usually just complain about it; what's to stop them?

Justification. They have none, if they're Subjectivists. They can whine, but they cannot make the case to their associates or to the world that their oppressors are immoral. They can't assert that they hold the moral high ground. And they can't expect sympathy. Subjectivists have to believe they're not evil, and are not doing evil at all.

You should read John Locke. Then you'd know why this is wrong. All human beings have a few basic rights: three, plausibly four. But a right to get whatever one "expects" is not among them. So the point carries: by Subjectivism, it's irrelevant who, or how many people, "expect" this or that. Values are all subjective, remember?

I assume you have read Locke.

Indeed I have.

Have you been afforded extra rights and privileges on the strength of it?

Not "extra." "Basic." And though you don't know it, it's exactly how you, too got your basic rights.

If my present day society is in a better state because it was founded by people who believed in objective moral values,

If you know history, they you know that's exactly right.

That does not, of course, mean there is any such thing as objective moral truth; it just means some people believe there is.

Sure. So now we've got to ask if those people were all just lucky fools, or whether they realized something we've lost. And all the more, because if they had believed Subjectivism, you'd have no grounds for rights at all.

However, as I've pointed out several times, if you're committed to Subjectivism, you still have the logical consequence of Moral Nihilism. I wonder why you're afraid to take it, though...

[Harbal]

They don't have democracy because SOMEBODY doesn't want them to have it. Or rather, "somebodies."

And do you suppose those somebodies asked the Chinese people whether they were subjectivists before they decided not to let them have democracy?

If they weren't asked, then by Subjectivism's lights, nobody has an actual duty to ask them. And now, whatever happened, the Chinese people have no grounds for protest. They aren't being treated unjustly, by the subjective opinion of the Party elite. So it's just tough for them, because the Party has the power.

This is getting ridiculous beyond words. People simply don't go round asking each other if their moral views are subjective or objective, and I very much doubt if the average person has even thought about it. All normal people have a sense of right and and wrong, and no two people are exactly alike in their moral opinions.

Incorrect; he can say whatever he likes.

And nobody is duty-bound to care a whit what he likes.

Nobody is duty bound to care a whit what you like, so what's the difference?

What can you, an objectivist, say about it that will make any difference?

I can say, "Hey -- you're treating these people objectively unjustly. You are objectively a tyrant. And because that's objectively true, we can boycott them, undermine their authority, support those who are campaigning for justice, and even go to war, if the situation warrants it. But Subjectivism gives no basis to believe any injustice is occurring, and no reason for people to take action against it.

Or you could just do what a normal person would do and not make yourself look silly by sticking "objectively" in front of every other word. People would either agree with you, or they wouldn't, but telling them you are being objective wouldn't make the slightest difference.

I don't think tyranny is right, and the fact that you say I'm not allowed to think it's wrong is of no interest to me, or the Chinese, I daresay.

I don't say you are "not allowed" to think you don't like it. I'm an objectivist -- so I believe you do. But as a Subjectivist, you have no way of explaining rationally why you think it's "wrong." All you can say is, "Me no like."

I could rationally explain why I think tyranny is wrong, and probably no less effectively than you could.

Unless you provide some evidence for that being the case, I will assume you are lying.

Easy. Most of the world still lives under repressive regimes of various kinds -- China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, most of Africa, much of Central and South America... You should know that already. Use your head.

That doesn't mean that most of them want to live under repressive regimes, or wouldn't prefer to live in a democracy. Use your head.

Have you been afforded extra rights and privileges on the strength of it?

Not "extra." "Basic." And though you don't know it, it's exactly how you, too got your basic rights.

Do you resent that having read Locke makes you no better than anyone else in the eyes of society?

However, as I've pointed out several times, if you're committed to Subjectivism, you still have the logical consequence of Moral Nihilism.

I'm not committed to subjectivism, whatever that actually is. I simply have the rational faculties that enable me to reason out there is no such thing as objective moral truth. Morality just isn't subject to absolute truth, it isn't that sort of thing. Moral nihilism -and I can only guess what that is- is not an option for me; I have a much too highly developed sense of morality.

And if "Objectivism" were what you claim it to be, I would expect you to have a far better developed sense of morality than you seem to have.

[Age]

That's circular. There has to be a better, independent reason that elections are legitimate, or all you've done is essentially say, "You've got to respect the government, because the government says you do."

I think people respect elections because they prefer democracy to the alternatives.

Some do, some don't, clearly. If everybody "preferred" democracy, then we'd have nothing but democracies. But the more important point is this: Subjectivism gives us no basis upon which to believe that democracy is any more moral or obligatory for anybody than its more common competitors, like Communism or other totalitarian systems.

Are you proposing that so-called 'objectivism' would?

If yes, then explain how, exactly?

But if you cannot or will not do this, then do you even, really, know what you are even trying to claim here?

So it's not an objective moral truth that elections deserve respecting. That's what you have to believe, based on that claim.

There is no such thing as objective moral truth. It is probably an objective truth that most people prefer living under a system where they are allowed to vote for the people who govern them.

It's probably not, statistically. But even if the "proles" DID prefer democracy, what moral principle informs us that the "proles" have any right to expect it? According to Subjectivism, there is no reason why I, as dictator, cannot tyrannize as many people as I like -- who says I owe them anything?

Will you show how 'objectivism', itself, does any thing different here?

If no, then why not?

Are you afraid, or just incapable, to?

Or, is there something else going on here, which is stopping and preventing you from explaining 'your, subjective, view and position' here?

You've lapsed again into a pure power argument: it goes, be nice to police, or they'll hurt you. Not that it's right to do so. Not that it's moral to do so. Just do so so that you don't get beaten, or jailed, or whatever. Nice.

We can hardly expect the protection of the law, and at the same time refuse to accept its authority.

What we "expect" has nothing to do with morality, obviously, if there are no moral truths.

Why do you keep trying to claim that there are 'moral truths', but each and every time I have asked you to just write down what those, supposed, 'moral truths' are, exactly, you have completely and utterly failed to do so.

Why is this? Are you afraid, incapable, or something else here?

Really "immanuel can" what is 'it', which is holding you back and preventing you from just telling all of 'us' here what, exactly, are the 'moral truths' that you keep going on about here?

Surely, if there are any actual 'moral truth/s', which, by the way, there irrefutably is/are, then why do you not just tell 'us' what it is, or they are, exactly?

So your argument boils down to "I have to knuckle-under to the law, because I want the benefits I get from cowering. That's another power argument, not a moral one, obviously: the government gets power because otherwise it will threaten me with the removal of my benefits...but not because the government is morally right, or that my capitulation to it is in any way noble or warranted. It works because I'm a coward.

Why are you being a coward here by just not listing what 'moral truths' actually exist, which you believe do, and which you keep telling 'us' do actually exist?

Take your pick. Lots of people do love Thatcher. But you're ducking the point by changing the example, because you know darn well how right I am about that. You wouldn't last five minutes..

But what is your point?

English Common Law and Sharia are two very different things, duking it out in your country. Those are two radically opposed moral codes, and people on both sides feel totally committed to them. Subjectively, each is felt every bit as strongly as the other...perhaps Sharia is even more ardently advocated: I don't see any rallies in the street for English Common Law, do you?

So subjectively, you will end up being under Sharia...especially if you go to a place like certain districts of Birmingham or Rotherham. And if you don't respect their terms there, you'll end up beaten or dead. That's a power argument. And these are subjectively-passionate people: maybe you are, too. But what's missing? What's missing is a universal code capable of saying whether English Common Law or Sharia is the genuinely moral option. Your "preferences" won't save you from that choice. Unless you can appeal to some greater principle, you can't even know whether you should affirm your English Common Law preferences, or their Sharia ones. Subjectively, they're equal.

So my point is very plain: absent an objective moral rule to arbitrate the case, you have no way of really knowing which option actually deserves to win.

And, you, obviously, have not, yet, informed 'us' of what 'moral truth', nor 'law', is the best, right, and moral one to follow and/or abide by.

This is because of your own individual and personal subjective perceptions here are not able to inform 'us', obviously.

you do not, yet, know what is morally true nor morally right here "immanuel can". As you keep proving to 'us' over and over again.

[Age]

Some do, some don't, clearly. If everybody "preferred" democracy, then we'd have nothing but democracies.

Do you think the Chinese people don't have democracy because they don't want it, then?

They don't have democracy because SOMEBODY doesn't want them to have it. Or rather, "somebodies."

But what can a Subjectivist say about that?

What could a so-called and self-proclaimed "objectivist" say about 'that', or say when living under any of your human made up other laws?

Nothing.

So, both the so-called "objectivists" and "subjectivists" are 'in the exact same boat', as some might say here.

For tyranny is just as "right" as democracy, since both are only valued subjectively, and some "subject" does, in fact, value each.

Are there any so-called "objectivists" living in that parcel of land bordered off and called "north korea"?

If yes, then what can they, and do, say there?

Again, the stupidity of Subjectivism. And its moral vacuity, of course.

This seems like a very personal, and very subjective, view of one, only, here.

But the more important point is this: Subjectivism gives us no basis upon which to believe that democracy is any more moral or obligatory for anybody than its more common competitors, like Communism or other totalitarian systems.

If people prefer democracy, and I really think most people do,

Statistically, what you "think" is wrong. Most don't.

So, statistically, what do people, and most people do, prefer "immanuel can"?

Also, where are you getting 'your statistics' from, exactly?

But it doesn't really change anything. Since all morality is subjective, so long as somebody values tyranny or democracy, who's got any right to complain?

Every human being has a 'right' to complain.

Just like you keep showing 'us' here how you have a 'right', to complain.

I am not sure why you believe that only a so-called "objectivist" would only 'have a right to complain', when and if 'morality', itself, was 'objective'.

But even if the "proles" DID prefer democracy, what moral principle informs us that the "proles" have any right to expect it? According to Subjectivism

I'm not aware that believing morality is a matter of objective truth entitles or gives anyone any extra rights about what they are entitled to expect.

You should read John Locke. Then you'd know why this is wrong. All human beings have a few basic rights: three, plausibly four. But a right to get whatever one "expects" is not among them. So the point carries: by Subjectivism, it's irrelevant who, or how many people, "expect" this or that. Values are all subjective, remember?

there is no reason why I, as dictator, cannot tyrannize as many people as I like -- who says I owe them anything?

And are populations that believe in moral objectivity somehow immune to falling under tyrannical dictatorships?

Those that do know what the objective human rights are (or rather, those that used to) are the democracies. And while even they are not immune to being corrupted by way of forgetting those basic rights, they have much, much more resilience than those polities in which human rights are simply unknown...and a better history, as well.

We can hardly expect the protection of the law, and at the same time refuse to accept its authority.

What we "expect" has nothing to do with morality, obviously, if there are no moral truths.

I am prepared to accept the protection of the law regardless of whether my expectations have something to do with morality or not

Not the point. Of course you are. But the law that you think "protects" you can just as easily be used to strip you of all those vaunted subjective preferences of yours. And most often, that's exactly what happens. The authorities simply deny them to the people: and people who don't even believe rights come from anything are not well-positioned even to diagnose the evil being done to them, let alone find grounds to protest or fight it.

So your argument boils down to "I have to knuckle-under to the law, because I want the benefits I get from cowering.

Are you being serious?

Yep.

That's another power argument, not a moral one, obviously: the government gets power because otherwise it will threaten me with the removal of my benefits...but not because the government is morally right, or that my capitulation to it is in any way noble or warranted. It works because I'm a coward.

You seem to have abandoned all concern for being taken seriously.

Rather, I think you're afraid to face the truth.

So subjectively, you will end up being under Sharia...especially if you go to a place like certain districts of Birmingham or Rotherham. And if you don't respect their terms there, you'll end up beaten or dead. That's a power argument. And these are subjectively-passionate people: maybe you are, too. But what's missing? What's missing is a universal code capable of saying whether English Common Law or Sharia is the genuinely moral option. Your "preferences" won't save you from that choice. Unless you can appeal to some greater principle, you can't even know whether you should affirm your English Common Law preferences, or their Sharia ones. Subjectively, they're equal.

So my point is very plain: absent an objective moral rule to arbitrate the case, you have no way of really knowing which option actually deserves to win.

And that is an argument in support of what, exactly?

For the necessity of a meta-moral, necessarily a universal and objective one, enable us to arbitrate among conflicting human "moralities." I'm also pointing out the total failure of Subjectivism to deliver any such thing. Subjectivism can't even tell us which "side," in the aggravated divisions with your own country, we should be defending.
[/quote]

Thinking or believing that there are "sides" is one of the huge reasons why these people, back then, were so 'blind-sided'. As can be clearly seen, here.

[Age]

They don't have democracy because SOMEBODY doesn't want them to have it. Or rather, "somebodies."

And do you suppose those somebodies asked the Chinese people whether they were subjectivists before they decided not to let them have democracy?

If they weren't asked, then by Subjectivism's lights, nobody has an actual duty to ask them. And now, whatever happened, the Chinese people have no grounds for protest. They aren't being treated unjustly, by the subjective opinion of the Party elite. So it's just tough for them, because the Party has the power.

But what can a Subjectivist say about that? Nothing.

Incorrect; he can say whatever he likes.

And nobody is duty-bound to care a whit what he likes.

What can you, an objectivist, say about it that will make any difference?

I can say, "Hey -- you're treating these people objectively unjustly. You are objectively a tyrant. And because that's objectively true, we can boycott them, undermine their authority, support those who are campaigning for justice, and even go to war, if the situation warrants it. But Subjectivism gives no basis to believe any injustice is occurring, and no reason for people to take action against it.

So, what this means is that absolutely any person can say to another, 'Hey, you are treating those people 'objectively' unjustly', and because the 'objectively' word is used, then everyone else 'has to' agree and accept that what 'that one' claimed is 'unjust' 'must be' 'unjust', because that one said it was 'objectively so'.

Are you sure that this will really work "immanuel can"?

For tyranny is just as "right" as democracy, since both are only valued subjectively, and some "subject" does, in fact, value each.

Those who value democracy won't think tyranny is right.

Again, why does anybody else need to care? Subjectivism says they don't.

I don't think tyranny is right, and the fact that you say I'm not allowed to think it's wrong is of no interest to me, or the Chinese, I daresay.

I don't say you are "not allowed" to think you don't like it. I'm an objectivist -- so I believe you do. But as a Subjectivist, you have no way of explaining rationally why you think it's "wrong." All you can say is, "Me no like."

Again, the stupidity of Subjectivism. And its moral vacuity, of course.

But I'm not stupid enough to think that anyone would respect my moral values more if I said they were grounded on objective truth. It really would be stupid to expect that.

Moral Objectivists may be convinced to do so. Subjectivists never can.

Statistically, what you "think" is wrong. Most don't.

Unless you provide some evidence for that being the case, I will assume you are lying.

Easy. Most of the world still lives under repressive regimes of various kinds -- China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, most of Africa, much of Central and South America... You should know that already. Use your head.

But it doesn't really change anything. Since all morality is subjective, so long as somebody values tyranny or democracy, who's got any right to complain?

People who have got something to complain about usually just complain about it; what's to stop them?

Justification. They have none, if they're Subjectivists. They can whine, but they cannot make the case to their associates or to the world that their oppressors are immoral. They can't assert that they hold the moral high ground. And they can't expect sympathy. Subjectivists have to believe they're not evil, and are not doing evil at all.

You should read John Locke. Then you'd know why this is wrong. All human beings have a few basic rights: three, plausibly four. But a right to get whatever one "expects" is not among them. So the point carries: by Subjectivism, it's irrelevant who, or how many people, "expect" this or that. Values are all subjective, remember?

I assume you have read Locke.

Indeed I have.

Have you been afforded extra rights and privileges on the strength of it?

Not "extra." "Basic." And though you don't know it, it's exactly how you, too got your basic rights.

If my present day society is in a better state because it was founded by people who believed in objective moral values,

If you know history, they you know that's exactly right.

That does not, of course, mean there is any such thing as objective moral truth; it just means some people believe there is.

Sure. So now we've got to ask if those people were all just lucky fools, or whether they realized something we've lost. And all the more, because if they had believed Subjectivism, you'd have no grounds for rights at all.

However, as I've pointed out several times, if you're committed to Subjectivism, you still have the logical consequence of Moral Nihilism. I wonder why you're afraid to take it, though...

[Age]

And do you suppose those somebodies asked the Chinese people whether they were subjectivists before they decided not to let them have democracy?

If they weren't asked, then by Subjectivism's lights, nobody has an actual duty to ask them. And now, whatever happened, the Chinese people have no grounds for protest. They aren't being treated unjustly, by the subjective opinion of the Party elite. So it's just tough for them, because the Party has the power.

This is getting ridiculous beyond words. People simply don't go round asking each other if their moral views are subjective or objective, and I very much doubt if the average person has even thought about it. All normal people have a sense of right and and wrong, and no two people are exactly alike in their moral opinions.

Incorrect; he can say whatever he likes.

And nobody is duty-bound to care a whit what he likes.

Nobody is duty bound to care a whit what you like, so what's the difference?

What can you, an objectivist, say about it that will make any difference?

I can say, "Hey -- you're treating these people objectively unjustly. You are objectively a tyrant. And because that's objectively true, we can boycott them, undermine their authority, support those who are campaigning for justice, and even go to war, if the situation warrants it. But Subjectivism gives no basis to believe any injustice is occurring, and no reason for people to take action against it.

Or you could just do what a normal person would do and not make yourself look silly by sticking "objectively" in front of every other word. People would either agree with you, or they wouldn't, but telling them you are being objective wouldn't make the slightest difference.

I don't think tyranny is right, and the fact that you say I'm not allowed to think it's wrong is of no interest to me, or the Chinese, I daresay.

I don't say you are "not allowed" to think you don't like it. I'm an objectivist -- so I believe you do. But as a Subjectivist, you have no way of explaining rationally why you think it's "wrong." All you can say is, "Me no like."

I could rationally explain why I think tyranny is wrong, and probably no less effectively than you could.

Unless you provide some evidence for that being the case, I will assume you are lying.

Easy. Most of the world still lives under repressive regimes of various kinds -- China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, most of Africa, much of Central and South America... You should know that already. Use your head.

That doesn't mean that most of them want to live under repressive regimes, or wouldn't prefer to live in a democracy. Use your head.

Have you been afforded extra rights and privileges on the strength of it?

Not "extra." "Basic." And though you don't know it, it's exactly how you, too got your basic rights.

Do you resent that having read Locke makes you no better than anyone else in the eyes of society?

However, as I've pointed out several times, if you're committed to Subjectivism, you still have the logical consequence of Moral Nihilism.

I'm not committed to subjectivism, whatever that actually is. I simply have the rational faculties that enable me to reason out there is no such thing as objective moral truth.

But, "Immanuel can" also believes that it has the 'rational faculties' that enable it to 'reason out' there is such a thing as 'objective moral truth'. So, which one of you two human beings is, exactly, Right and Accurate here?

What actual irrefutable 'reason/s' do you both have for your own personal, subjective, views here?

Are you 100%, absolutely, sure that there is not such a thing as an 'objective moral truth' "harbal"? Or, is this just what you think or believe is true?

Morality just isn't subject to absolute truth, it isn't that sort of thing. Moral nihilism -and I can only guess what that is- is not an option for me; I have a much too highly developed sense of morality.

And if "Objectivism" were what you claim it to be, I would expect you to have a far better developed sense of morality than you seem to have.

[Harbal]

I'm not committed to subjectivism, whatever that actually is. I simply have the rational faculties that enable me to reason out there is no such thing as objective moral truth.

But, "Immanuel can" also believes that it has the 'rational faculties' that enable it to 'reason out' there is such a thing as 'objective moral truth'. So, which one of you two human beings is, exactly, Right and Accurate here?

I think I am right. IC's argument is that a thing is morally right or wrong according to which God says it is, and its rightness or wrongness is given to it by virtue of that alone. Firstly, that argument depends entirely on the existence of the biblical God, which is by no means generally considered to be a matter of objective fact. But putting that aside, it still wouldn't make morality objective, it would just be an instance of God's subjective moral view. Morality is defined as being our sense of right and wrong, so my argument is that it's subjectivity is part of its definition. IC is talking about the supposed authority of God's word, not about morality.

What actual irrefutable 'reason/s' do you both have for your own personal, subjective, views here?

I don't claim to have any irrefutable reasoning, I just claim to be using the word, "morality", in accordance with its generally accepted definition, whereas IC seems to have redefined the word to specifically support what he would like everyone else to believe.

Are you 100%, absolutely, sure that there is not such a thing as an 'objective moral truth' "harbal"? Or, is this just what you think or believe is true?

I have been wrong too many times in my life to ever be 100% sure that I am right about anything. It really depends on what, exactly, is meant by the word, "objective". The term, 'objective moral truth', could mean various things, some of which I may well be able to accept, but I am as sure as I can be that what IC means by it is just plain nonsense.

[Immanuel Can]

This is getting ridiculous beyond words.

Only because you're making it so, by trying to put words in my mouth, so that then you can say, "This is ridiculous."

People simply don't go round asking each other if their moral views are subjective or objective,

There's an example: show me where I said that they do. You can't. I didn't. You made it up.

All normal people have a sense of right and and wrong, and no two people are exactly alike in their moral opinions.

If that were true, moral consensus would be impossible. But worse, there would be no such thing as "right" and "wrong" at all, because each of those words would apply equally to everything any person could ever do. So they'd apply to nothing in particular.

...telling them you are being objective wouldn't make the slightest difference.

It makes a very big difference, actually. It's the same difference there is between saying, "There's no country of England" and "England exists."

I could rationally explain why I think tyranny is wrong, and probably no less effectively than you could.

Go ahead. But be cautious to remain within the terms your Subjectivism allows to you. And that means that you can't use any words that imply you expect anybody to have any duty at all to agree with you, since you insist they don't.

Unless you provide some evidence for that being the case, I will assume you are lying.

Easy. Most of the world still lives under repressive regimes of various kinds -- China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, most of Africa, much of Central and South America... You should know that already. Use your head.

That doesn't mean that most of them want to live under repressive regimes, or wouldn't prefer to live in a democracy.

What they "want" is not something Subjectivism would allow you or me to have any actual reason to care about. They also all might want a pony. It doesn't mean they're entitled to one. What Subjectivist reason makes it necessary for us, or for any dictator or any potential liberator, to care what they prefer?

Have you been afforded extra rights and privileges on the strength of it?

Not "extra." "Basic." And though you don't know it, it's exactly how you, too got your basic rights.

Do you resent that having read Locke makes you no better than anyone else in the eyes of society?

"Resent"? There you go again: you're trying to script something ridiculous that not only did I never say, but I never even imagined. I'll give that question the attention it deserves.

However, as I've pointed out several times, if you're committed to Subjectivism, you still have the logical consequence of Moral Nihilism.

I simply have the rational faculties that enable me to reason out there is no such thing as objective moral truth.

That's Subjectivism. Drop the label, and you change nothing.

Moral nihilism -and I can only guess what that is- is not an option for me; I have a much too highly developed sense of morality.

I don't doubt that you do. But you shouldn't have, if Subjectivism were true. Instead, you should actually believe what you say: namely, that all value judgments are merely an individual's quirk. So you should have no sense of morality at all, really.

But we do. We all do. And it's not an easy thing to explain why we do, or how such a thing comes about. All the Materialist and Evolutionary sorts of explanations are very thin, and they quickly die on the available countercases -- such as the many moral situations that do not enhance survival value, and the utter inexplicability of why "materials" would "want" us to have any moral sense at all, since "materials" also can't have an opinion about whether or not any species survives anyway.

So why do we humans believe in "morality," a thing that is so often contrary to practical and personal choices? It seems a very strange thing for us to believe in at all, unless there's something more than a mere quirk behind it. Still, it's always possible for a Subjectivist to gather enough courage to be consistent, and then to become a Nihilist. But it's not really logically possible for him to continue to believe there's a meaning to the word "moral" while he simultaneously tries to use it as a description of literally every action a person can want to do or can commit.