TRUMP AHEAD?

[Age]

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.

Okay, but "immanuel can" thinks, or believes, it is right.

Until either of you provide a sound and valid reason/argument for what you both think, or believe, is right here, do you think 'we' are better of deciding which one of you is right, or just remain observing only?

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.

I have not seen "immanuel can" argue that 'morally right or wrong' depends on 'which God says it is', and I do not think that "immanuel can" would even think this, let alone say this, considering the fact that "immanuel can" believes, absolutely, that there is only One God.

Also, could it be a possibility that the Rightness, or Wrongness, 'morally', was, and still is, given by God, Itself?

Or, is this an, absolute, impossibility, from your perspective and view of things here?

But putting that aside, it still wouldn't make morality objective, it would just be an instance of God's subjective moral view.

Now, could it be a possibility that when, and if, who and what the term and word 'God' means, and has been referring to, references the very Thing from which 'objectivity' is found, and/or comes from, exactly?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

Morality is defined as being our sense of right and wrong,

I have never seen the 'morality' word defined, previously, as being 'our sense of ...'. But, considering the fact that 'morality' is only conceived in 'our' sense, if the word 'our', here, is meaning what I think you are referring to, the words 'our sense' work here.

so my argument is that it's subjectivity is part of its definition.

But what if 'the subjectivity', which you have just placed in 'its definition' here, can be 'objectively sensed'?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

IC is talking about the supposed authority of God's word, not about morality.

But, "immanuel can" is, absolutely, in no position at all to speak about, nor for, 'the authority of God's word'. "immanuel can is, still, under a complete delusion that God is male-gendered and that 'a male thing' created the whole Universe, Itself. So, "immanuel can", clearly, is not in any position at all to speak of, or about, 'God's actual words'. "immanuel can" has absolutely no 'authority' at all here.

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,

'Generally accepted' 'to who', and/or 'by who', exactly?

whereas IC seems to have redefined the word to specifically support what he would like everyone else to believe.

Did you not just do, more or less, the exact same thing when you defined the 'morality' word with and by the words, 'our sense ...', which could be inferred as 'morality' is 'subjective' to 'our senses'?

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.

But, surely you have been right, enough times, in your life, to know when you are 100% sure of some things, correct?

Could you have thought, or believed, that you were 'right' previously, too many times in your life, before you actually obtained and gained the actual clarity or clarification of what was 'actually right' and so learned, maybe 'the hard way', about things in Life?

Also, if you are not 100% sure that you are right about some thing here, then why are you trying to argue for 'that thing'?

It really depends on what, exactly, is meant by the word, "objective".

Very, Very True.

And, until you posters here even begin to agree upon and accept what you, each, mean when you use the 'objective' word, you could, if you lived long enough, be arguing and disagreeing about this same issue for another millennia, or two. Exactly like you adult human beings have been doing, hitherto, when this is being written.

The term, 'objective moral truth', could mean various things,

So, what is 'it', exactly, that you are trying to argue against here?

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.

When one starts with, God is a male-gendered creature, which created the whole Universe, and made up what is 'morally right and wrong', and 'objectively', then, obviously, and very clearly, what 'that one' means is, absolute, pure nonsense.

But, what is, actually and irrefutably, 'objectively morally Right and Wrong, in Life', is something that can be uncovered, comprehended, understood, and known. And, as you pointed out what the term or phrase, 'objective moral truth', actually means has to be discussed, agreed with, and understood, first.

[Age]

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."

Is this something that you have never done here "immanuel can"?

And, could it be a possibility that some of what you have been saying and claiming is getting ridiculous beyond words?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

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.

you may not have used those exact words, but it was you "immanuel can" who claimed that as a self-proclaimed "objectivist" you could go around and say things like, 'Hey -- you're treating these people objectively unjustly', which could be inferred as, as long as one did go around asking if your views are subjective or not, then they would 'know' if 'the other' is a so-called "objectivist" or a "subjectivist", and they could then also 'know' if 'the other's' views are so-called 'right views' or 'wrong views'.

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."

It is absolutely nothing like this at all. And, this is because those people all agree on the exact same thing.

Telling some one that what they are doing is 'objectively unjustly', when that one believes that what they are doing is 'just' is not going to make one difference at all. Just as telling that one that what they are doing is 'subjectively unjust' or even just 'unjust'. While one is believing that what they are doing is 'just', then they are not open to listening, nor hearing, anything otherwise.

But, i have just considered, what if someone was to inform you that what you are doing is 'subjectively unjust', would any of you reading this then just stop for a second and consider, what is their 'subjective view' on the matter here?

Obviously people do not like to be told that something is wrong, while they believe otherwise, so they tend not to 'listen' to 'the other', and this might be more so true when hearing that something is 'objectively wrong', especially in regards to what one is doing, and they believe otherwise, but hearing 'subjectively wrong' might in fact induce a spark of interest, and provide a sense of wonderment, which might create some curiosity, and even a clarifying question, or two.

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.

If you 'expect' any one to have any duty at all to agree with you, then here we have another example of how 'dictatorship', itself, actually starts, and begins.

After all it is those who believe that they have the true and right knowledge, and morals, in Life, who end up believing, and expecting, that others follow and abide 'by them' and by their order and rules.

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?

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.

So, 'your answer' would be, 'No', correct?

And, you do, absolutely, believe that you are no better than anyone else, right?

Or, do you, really, actually believe that you are better than others are?

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.

When you speak and write here you come across, to me anyway, as though you, absolutely, believe that individuals do not have, their own personal, 'subjective views'. Is this what you believe?

Instead, you should actually believe what you say: namely, that all value judgments are merely an individual's quirk.

Why do you add words like 'quirk' or 'twinge' here as though this will help bolster your claim that absolutely everything here is 'objective'?

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,

But, once again, it is an extremely very simple and very easy process to explain, and to understand. That is; once one knows and understands why all human beings have an intrinsic sense of 'morality', and even know, still unconsciously though to just about all in the days when this is being written, what is actually 'morally' Right and Wrong, in Life.

you people just need to stop arguing, bickering, and fighting over what you each believe is true and right here to learn, or find out, what you all intrinsically 'know', agree upon, and accept, within.

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.

The 'learned' selfishness and greed comes to the forefront once again. Life, and living, is not, ultimately, 'about species', but you adult human beings here think it is, while some even believe it is. In fact, just about every adult human being in the days when this was being written had 'learned' and thus thought or believed that Life, and living, was about 'them' individually and personally. This can be clearly seen in how they 'read' the words 'heaven' and 'hell'. Just about every one of them thought or believed that those words were 'about them' and what happens 'to them', after the material body 'stops'.

So why do we humans believe in "morality,"

But, people do not, generally, 'believe' 'in morality'. To some, 'morality' is just about 'the mis/behavior' people do, or do not do. And, some people do not 'believe in' 'the mis/behavior' they do. They just 'do it'.

a thing that is so often contrary to practical and personal choices?

Yes. For example do you 'believe in' the misbehavior you do?

Or, do you believe in the behavior that you do, which you think or believe is good or right, but which is actually Wrong, and the cause of the Wrong and ills in 'the world'?

It seems a very strange thing for us to believe in at all,

Which is why most/some do not.

unless there's something more than a mere quirk behind it.

Is what 'you sense' more than a 'mere quirk'?

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.

If this is what you want to believe is absolutely true, then you are, absolutely, free to keep doing so, right?

[Harbal]

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.

Okay, but "immanuel can" thinks, or believes, it is right.

Until either of you provide a sound and valid reason/argument for what you both think, or believe, is right here, do you think 'we' are better of deciding which one of you is right, or just remain observing only?

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.

I have not seen "immanuel can" argue that 'morally right or wrong' depends on 'which God says it is', and I do not think that "immanuel can" would even think this, let alone say this, considering the fact that "immanuel can" believes, absolutely, that there is only One God.

Also, could it be a possibility that the Rightness, or Wrongness, 'morally', was, and still is, given by God, Itself?

Or, is this an, absolute, impossibility, from your perspective and view of things here?

But putting that aside, it still wouldn't make morality objective, it would just be an instance of God's subjective moral view.

Now, could it be a possibility that when, and if, who and what the term and word 'God' means, and has been referring to, references the very Thing from which 'objectivity' is found, and/or comes from, exactly?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

Morality is defined as being our sense of right and wrong,

I have never seen the 'morality' word defined, previously, as being 'our sense of ...'. But, considering the fact that 'morality' is only conceived in 'our' sense, if the word 'our', here, is meaning what I think you are referring to, the words 'our sense' work here.

so my argument is that it's subjectivity is part of its definition.

But what if 'the subjectivity', which you have just placed in 'its definition' here, can be 'objectively sensed'?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

IC is talking about the supposed authority of God's word, not about morality.

But, "immanuel can" is, absolutely, in no position at all to speak about, nor for, 'the authority of God's word'. "immanuel can is, still, under a complete delusion that God is male-gendered and that 'a male thing' created the whole Universe, Itself. So, "immanuel can", clearly, is not in any position at all to speak of, or about, 'God's actual words'. "immanuel can" has absolutely no 'authority' at all here.

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,

'Generally accepted' 'to who', and/or 'by who', exactly?

whereas IC seems to have redefined the word to specifically support what he would like everyone else to believe.

Did you not just do, more or less, the exact same thing when you defined the 'morality' word with and by the words, 'our sense ...', which could be inferred as 'morality' is 'subjective' to 'our senses'?

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.

But, surely you have been right, enough times, in your life, to know when you are 100% sure of some things, correct?

Could you have thought, or believed, that you were 'right' previously, too many times in your life, before you actually obtained and gained the actual clarity or clarification of what was 'actually right' and so learned, maybe 'the hard way', about things in Life?

Also, if you are not 100% sure that you are right about some thing here, then why are you trying to argue for 'that thing'?

It really depends on what, exactly, is meant by the word, "objective".

Very, Very True.

And, until you posters here even begin to agree upon and accept what you, each, mean when you use the 'objective' word, you could, if you lived long enough, be arguing and disagreeing about this same issue for another millennia, or two. Exactly like you adult human beings have been doing, hitherto, when this is being written.

The term, 'objective moral truth', could mean various things,

So, what is 'it', exactly, that you are trying to argue against here?

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.

When one starts with, God is a male-gendered creature, which created the whole Universe, and made up what is 'morally right and wrong', and 'objectively', then, obviously, and very clearly, what 'that one' means is, absolute, pure nonsense.

But, what is, actually and irrefutably, 'objectively morally Right and Wrong, in Life', is something that can be uncovered, comprehended, understood, and known. And, as you pointed out what the term or phrase, 'objective moral truth', actually means has to be discussed, agreed with, and understood, first.

I'm sorry, Age, but if you want me to reply to any of this you will have to condense it down to the essentials. I don't have the time or patience to deal with endless lists of questions.

[Harbal]

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."

You are making it so by presenting a completely unrealistic representation of the world, where people behave in some strange way that one never encounters in real life. How often do people ask each other if their moral views are just their subjective opinion, or matters of objective fact, ffs?

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.

Well if you are not implying that, how would anyone know whether I think my moral views are just my opinion, or the subject of objective truth, so that they could then decide whether to take them seriously or not?

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.

People of the same culture tend to have many moral views in common, because it is our culture that shapes our moral outlook, so moral consensus is very achievable much of the time.

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

It makes a very big difference, actually.

It would make no difference to how they responded to you, or how seriously they took you, which seems to be a matter of importance to you, as you are always saying that no one need take my moral views into account. Well I am saying that no one needs to take yours into account, either.

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.

If you actually do want me to make the effort of explaining why I think tyranny is wrong, you will have to first give your explanation of why it is wrong. And also, I will do it in words of my own choosing, not only the ones I have your permission to use.

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.

I'm going to be blunt, IC; that is a fucking stupid comment.

[Immanuel Can]

How often do people ask each other if their moral views are just their subjective opinion, or matters of objective fact, ffs?

Maybe ordinary people never do so, at least in those words. Probably, what they ask themselves is, "Is it really right/wrong to..." And that's extremely common: and it amounts to exactly the same thing, but in common language, rather than with the precise language of philosophers.

But so what? They DO ask the question...and all the time.

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.

Well if you are not implying that, how would anyone know whether I think my moral views are just my opinion, or the subject of objective truth, so that they could then decide whether to take them seriously or not?

Look above, and you have your answer.

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.

People of the same culture tend to have many moral views in common, because it is our culture that shapes our moral outlook, so moral consensus is very achievable much of the time.

That's just another appeal to power, not to morality. The fact that other people "shape" your outlook doesn't begin to answer the question of its rightness or wrongness. If it did, beating women would be moral in Syria, and horribly immoral in Boston. And yet, it's exactly the same action.

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

It makes a very big difference, actually.

It would make no difference to how they responded to you,

Sure it will. If somebody knows something is objectively wrong, then they have to make a serious decision about whether or not to do it. If all you're saying is it's subjectively "wrong," then your saying has neither implications for them, nor any real meaning even for you. It just means, "I twinged."

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.

If you actually do want me to make the effort of explaining why I think tyranny is wrong, you will have to first give your explanation of why it is wrong.

No, no...no scrambling now. You said you could do it. Go ahead.

And also, I will do it in words of my own choosing, not only the ones I have your permission to use.

You have to use the ones that a belief in Subjectivism allows you. If not, of course, I'll quite happily point out your error.

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.

I'm going to be blunt, IC; that is a fucking stupid comment.

Let me also be blunt: you need to think more carefully than you are doing. Subjectivism does not give you any reason to care what another person wants. That's definitional: because their "wanting" is just as subjective as whatever your reaction to their "wanting" is. So how will Subjectivism account for your feeling that you SHOULD care?

Quite simply, it cannot.

[Harbal]

How often do people ask each other if their moral views are just their subjective opinion, or matters of objective fact, ffs?

Maybe ordinary people never do so, at least in those words. Probably, what they ask themselves is, "Is it really right/wrong to..." And that's extremely common:

It is very common, indeed, and I do that myself.

But so what?

So I'm pretty much like everyone else in that respect.

People of the same culture tend to have many moral views in common, because it is our culture that shapes our moral outlook, so moral consensus is very achievable much of the time.

That's just another appeal to power, not to morality.

It's not an appeal to anything, it's just a description of how morality works in my experience.

The fact that other people "shape" your outlook doesn't begin to answer the question of its rightness or wrongness. If it did, beating women would be moral in Syria, and horribly immoral in Boston. And yet, it's exactly the same action.

I think you are beginning to understand.

It is indeed the case that some things are considered morally acceptable in one time and place, but not necessarily so in another time and place.

I believe the British legal system once considered it alright for a man to beat his wife, as long as he didn't go too far. Of course, that was back in the times when you say morality was thought to be a matter of objective truth.

It would make no difference to how they responded to you,

Sure it will. If somebody knows something is objectively wrong, then they have to make a serious decision about whether or not to do it.

And how will you make them believe that you have the objective truth, and abandon what they hitherto thought of as their objective truth? And how can you be sure that what they consider to be the objective truth really isn't? I daresay you would exercise your subjective judgement, and favour your own "truth".

If you actually do want me to make the effort of explaining why I think tyranny is wrong, you will have to first give your explanation of why it is wrong.

No, no...no scrambling now. You said you could do it. Go ahead.

Fair enough, if you don't want to accept the challenge, I can't say it was something I particularly wanted to bother doing.

And also, I will do it in words of my own choosing, not only the ones I have your permission to use.

You have to use the ones that a belief in Subjectivism allows you. If not, of course, I'll quite happily point out your error.

I don't really want to play a game in which my opponent is also the referee, so no thanks.

I'm going to be blunt, IC; that is a fucking stupid comment.

Let me also be blunt:

I wouldn't bother, I'm so much better at it than you are.

[Gary Childress]

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.

It doesn't seem strange to me that people don't run around killing each other and robbing each other on sight. That seems like it would be an intolerable world to live in. It seems to me that there is every reason for human beings to cooperate and respect each other. Every human achievement, whether raising a barn, building a bridge or launching a spaceship to the moon is based on cooperation and regard for others. It seems like a bit of a reach to say that morality isn't beneficial. I'd say it's VERY beneficial to be able to walk out the door and not be killed by your neighbor on sight in exchange for stealing your belongings.

What would be an example of a moral imperative that would not be beneficial to human beings? Or if morality were suddenly erased from the world completely, in what way would people benefit?

[Immanuel Can]

How often do people ask each other if their moral views are just their subjective opinion, or matters of objective fact, ffs?

Maybe ordinary people never do so, at least in those words. Probably, what they ask themselves is, "Is it really right/wrong to..." And that's extremely common:

It is very common, indeed, and I do that myself.

But so what?

So I'm pretty much like everyone else in that respect.

So?

People of the same culture tend to have many moral views in common, because it is our culture that shapes our moral outlook, so moral consensus is very achievable much of the time.

That's just another appeal to power, not to morality.

It's not an appeal to anything, it's just a description of how morality works in my experience.

By power, you mean. Yes, Nietzsche thought that too.

The fact that other people "shape" your outlook doesn't begin to answer the question of its rightness or wrongness. If it did, beating women would be moral in Syria, and horribly immoral in Boston. And yet, it's exactly the same action.

I think you are beginning to understand.

I wish I could say the same about you. The point is that Subjectivism can never tell us whether beating women is right or wrong.

It would make no difference to how they responded to you,

Sure it will. If somebody knows something is objectively wrong, then they have to make a serious decision about whether or not to do it.

And how will you make them believe that you have the objective truth,

I'm not responsible to force anybody's compliance. The job of a moral person is simply to point out what the moral truth is...not to force people to respect it. Some will, some won't. The moral ones will, the immoral ones won't. But all will have to answer for what they choose to do, in the Judgment.

If you actually do want me to make the effort of explaining why I think tyranny is wrong, you will have to first give your explanation of why it is wrong.

No, no...no scrambling now. You said you could do it. Go ahead.

Fair enough, if you don't want to accept the challenge,

It's your task. You claimed you could do it. And now you can't?

And also, I will do it in words of my own choosing, not only the ones I have your permission to use.

You have to use the ones that a belief in Subjectivism allows you. If not, of course, I'll quite happily point out your error.

I don't really want to play a game in which my opponent is also the referee, so no thanks.

I'm not the one putting the constraint on you. A thing called "rational consistency" is, and he's the only referee. Let's both abide by his decision.

Go ahead...

[Gary Childress]

Maybe ordinary people never do so, at least in those words. Probably, what they ask themselves is, "Is it really right/wrong to..." And that's extremely common:

It is very common, indeed, and I do that myself.

But so what?

So I'm pretty much like everyone else in that respect.

So?

That's just another appeal to power, not to morality.

It's not an appeal to anything, it's just a description of how morality works in my experience.

By power, you mean. Yes, Nietzsche thought that too.

The fact that other people "shape" your outlook doesn't begin to answer the question of its rightness or wrongness. If it did, beating women would be moral in Syria, and horribly immoral in Boston. And yet, it's exactly the same action.

I think you are beginning to understand.

I wish I could say the same about you. The point is that Subjectivism can never tell us whether beating women is right or wrong.

Sure it will. If somebody knows something is objectively wrong, then they have to make a serious decision about whether or not to do it.

And how will you make them believe that you have the objective truth,

I'm not responsible to force anybody's compliance. The job of a moral person is simply to point out what the moral truth is...not to force people to respect it. Some will, some won't. The moral ones will, the immoral ones won't. But all will have to answer for what they choose to do, in the Judgment.

No, no...no scrambling now. You said you could do it. Go ahead.

Fair enough, if you don't want to accept the challenge,

It's your task. You claimed you could do it. And now you can't?

You have to use the ones that a belief in Subjectivism allows you. If not, of course, I'll quite happily point out your error.

I don't really want to play a game in which my opponent is also the referee, so no thanks.

I'm not the one putting the constraint on you. A thing called "rational consistency" is, and he's the only referee. Let's both abide by his decision.

Go ahead...

It's an interesting sight to see a person who professes belief in God trying to demolish morality in the name of insisting that his God must necessarily exist.

[Harbal]

Maybe ordinary people never do so, at least in those words. Probably, what they ask themselves is, "Is it really right/wrong to..." And that's extremely common:

It is very common, indeed, and I do that myself.

But so what?

So I'm pretty much like everyone else in that respect.

So?

So there you have it.

It's not an appeal to anything, it's just a description of how morality works in my experience.

By power, you mean. Yes, Nietzsche thought that too.

I wouldn't call social consensus power, and although I don't really know what Nietzsche thought, I suspect he wouldn't, either.

I think you are beginning to understand.

I wish I could say the same about you.

I understand you all too well.

The point is that Subjectivism can never tell us whether beating women is right or wrong.

I suggest we don't ask it, then.

And how will you make them believe that you have the objective truth,

I'm not responsible to force anybody's compliance. The job of a moral person is simply to point out what the moral truth is.

Or, rather, what he believes it to be, which is the best even you can do.

But all will have to answer for what they choose to do, in the Judgment.

And what objectively true facts do you know about "the Judgement"?

Fair enough, if you don't want to accept the challenge,

It's your task. You claimed you could do it. And now you can't?

I'm not really in the mood for letting you manipulate me into jumping through hoops.

You have to use the ones that a belief in Subjectivism allows you. If not, of course, I'll quite happily point out your error.

I don't really want to play a game in which my opponent is also the referee, so no thanks.

I'm not the one putting the constraint on you.

I'm going to be blunt again; fuck off.

[Immanuel Can]

It's an interesting sight to see a person who professes belief in God trying to demolish morality in the name of insisting that his God must necessarily exist.

I'm not "demolishing morality," Gary. I believe in morality, and I'm arguing for it. It's Subjectivism that makes morality impossible, and which inevitably leads logically to Nihilism. Ironically, Nietzsche, the man who famously said "God is dead," agrees with me entirely on this point. And when two such strong opponents are found to agree despite all their differences, what does that tell you?

[Immanuel Can]

I wouldn't call social consensus power, and although I don't really know what Nietzsche thought, I suspect he wouldn't, either.

Yeah, he would. He would say that "morality" is nothing more than the weak collectively trying to limit the great men (ubermenschen). That is, trying to use the power of social pressure to restrict those who are stronger and better than they. He argued that a great man is "beyond good and evil" completely.

The point is that Subjectivism can never tell us whether beating women is right or wrong.

I suggest we don't ask it, then.

I agree. Subjectivism can tell us nothing whatsoever about morality, so why consult it?

But all will have to answer for what they choose to do, in the Judgment.

And what objectively true facts do you know about "the Judgement"?

Just what the Word of God says. "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds." (Rev. 20:11-12)

Here's the thing: you think it won't ever come. I think it will. If it doesn't, you'll never know: you'll be dead and gone to oblivion anyway -- not great, but at least not as bad...

But if it does, we'll both know. Prepare accordingly.

[Harbal]

But all will have to answer for what they choose to do, in the Judgment.

And what objectively true facts do you know about "the Judgement"?

Just what the Word of God says. "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds." (Rev. 20:11-12)

Yes, I thought you would come up with something like that.

Here's the thing: you think it won't ever come. I think it will. If it doesn't, you'll never know: you'll be dead and gone to oblivion anyway -- not great, but at least not as bad...

But if it does, we'll both know. Prepare accordingly.

I promise you, I have prepared accordingly.

[Harbal]

It's an interesting sight to see a person who professes belief in God trying to demolish morality in the name of insisting that his God must necessarily exist.

Religion makes a man do strange things, Gary.

[Immanuel Can]

I promise you, I have prepared accordingly.

See you there.