TRUMP AHEAD?

[Immanuel Can]

Whatever has an even number of letters will be considered to be moral. Whatever has an odd number of letters will be considered to be immoral. Numbers will be considered amoral.

Seriously? C'mon...give us a real answer. This is a serious question. After all, if a theory of morality cannot even support a single precept that you and I regard as clear and reasonable, then how good can that theory be?

Yes, seriously.

No, seriously. If a theory cannot support any moral precept, then in what sense does it have anything to say about "the moral" at all?

Speaking of what you and I regard as clear and reasonable, here’s an experiment to show just how much you and I agree about morality. Please answer the following for me:

Abortion—is it morally acceptable or not?
IVF—moral or not?
Capital Punishment—moral or not?

For me the answers are acceptable, moral, moral. Let’s compare and find out how much we agree.

Well, it's sometimes possible to be as direct about some issues, but I would say that many issues require ethical discerment before one should either approve or condemn them. The first is easy, but the second and third take some nuancing.

Abortion is clearly murder. We all know it is. Some people just try to position it as "justifiable" murder. Murder isn't justifiable. IVF depends: we'd need circumstances to know, such as whether or not it was a married couple overcoming infertility, or an irresponsible medical experiment of some kind, for example. Capital punishment also depends, and we'd need more circumstances for that one, too. I wouldn't just pronounce either IVF or capital punishment as either moral or immoral in themselves; there can be circumstances that warrant them, and there are circumstances that clearly do not.

But as objective morality does not exist, you have made a claim that God does not exist.

That's a logical error, I'm afraid. It's rather like saying, "If there's no hay in the barn, then the barn didn't exist." Morality is not the totality of God, obviously. And you can easily imagine how a "god" like that of the Islamists, the Gnostics or the Deists could exist while no objective morality existed.

You quoted this, commonsense...did you wish to make a remark on it?

What you said is like saying,
“If A then B”
“Not B”
Therefore Not A.

I didn't say this. I didn't say that objective morality does not exist, far less that God's existence depends on the existence of objective morality. So I'm confused as to why you think this is an argument. It's a non-sequitur, and doesn't represent anything I argued.

You're jumping to an incorrect assumption.

I'm not making the case that because Subjectivism is false, therefore objectivism is true. I've pointed out repeatedly that the road from Subjectivism leads not to objectivism at all, but to Nihilism. The choice is between objectivism and NO morality. But I've so far never suggested that Nihilism isn't an option. In fact, as Nietzsche saw, it's the ONLY rational option left to somebody who has already dismissed belief in God...and I am honouring that fact.

Want to be a Nihilist? You can, logically speaking. And you'll be, at least, rationally consistent. Want to be a Subjectivist? You can...but not with logic. You'll be irrational and inconsistent.

The case for objective morality cannot be made without the premise that it's at least possible that God exists. If you think it can, then I'm wide open to seeing how it could be. And if you can do it, you'll be the greatest moral philosopher the world has ever seen...greater than Kant, Mill, Bentham, Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche, Camus, Aristotle, Aquinas, Rorty, Foucault...your career and reputation will be secured forever, you can be certain. For a grounds for morality that does not require belief in God has long been the "unholy grail" of moral philosophy. The man who finds it will be a secular hero.

All that you’ve said in the previous 4 paragraphs has nothing to do with your ignorance of simple predicate logic.

I'm fine on logic: but I see a problem with your objection, for sure. But what I said in those paragraphs is far from irrelevant. It's the core of my argument.

But you can beat it if you can show that there's one precept of any kind that Subjectivism can obligate us toward. Go ahead.

See if you can follow this: in the modus example above, let A = God exists, and let B = objective morality exists.

You've misread my argument. It's not that "If God exists, then there must be an objective morality." It's the opposite. It's that "If (assumptively) God does NOT exist, then there is no grounds for believing in morality of any kind." And that's perfectly right.

...you unwittingly claimed, that if God exists then there must be an objective morality that exists.

Show me where I claimed that, please.

But as you can see from our experiment above,

What "experiment"?

...or at least from the disagreements of many others across a significant divide,

I'm sorry...are you making the bandwagon fallacy here? Or are you taking "disagreements" to entail the conclusion, "therefore, there's no right answer"?

...there cannot be an objective form of morality that exists at all.

"Because people disagree, there is no truth." That's your assumption?

So have a go. You've got everything to win, and nothing to lose.

I can't help but notice that you didn't try. I know why, too...you can't do it. As I said above, if you could, you'd be the greatest moral philosopher in history. It's too much to expect, though. Subjectivism itself will fail you every time you try.

Morality isn’t necessary for the essence of a human.

Eh? "For the essence..."? What "essence" do you mean?

One can survive and procreate without morals.

So can dogs.

Power would then replace morality as the measure of right and wrong. Sad, but true.

Now you're agreeing with Nietzsche...and ironically, with me, too. If there is no morality, then all that's left is power. And Subjectivism has no ability to rationalize morality. Nietzsche saw that, too. So then, one either despairs or embraces power, and goes "beyond good and evil," as per Nietzsche.

Did you notice how Nietzsche started that line of thinking, though? With the famous claim, "God is dead, and we have killed Him." So even Nietzsche knew that only the existence of God could justify belief in objective morality. Absent God, no morality.

[accelafine]

Seriously? C'mon...give us a real answer. This is a serious question. After all, if a theory of morality cannot even support a single precept that you and I regard as clear and reasonable, then how good can that theory be?

Yes, seriously.

No, seriously. If a theory cannot support any moral precept, then in what sense does it have anything to say about "the moral" at all?

Speaking of what you and I regard as clear and reasonable, here’s an experiment to show just how much you and I agree about morality. Please answer the following for me:

Abortion—is it morally acceptable or not?
IVF—moral or not?
Capital Punishment—moral or not?

For me the answers are acceptable, moral, moral. Let’s compare and find out how much we agree.

Well, it's sometimes possible to be as direct about some issues, but I would say that many issues require ethical discerment before one should either approve or condemn them. The first is easy, but the second and third take some nuancing.

Abortion is clearly murder. We all know it is. Some people just try to position it as "justifiable" murder. Murder isn't justifiable. IVF depends: we'd need circumstances to know, such as whether or not it was a married couple overcoming infertility, or an irresponsible medical experiment of some kind, for example. Capital punishment also depends, and we'd need more circumstances for that one, too. I wouldn't just pronounce either IVF or capital punishment as either moral or immoral in themselves; there can be circumstances that warrant them, and there are circumstances that clearly do not.

But as objective morality does not exist, you have made a claim that God does not exist.

That's a logical error, I'm afraid. It's rather like saying, "If there's no hay in the barn, then the barn didn't exist." Morality is not the totality of God, obviously. And you can easily imagine how a "god" like that of the Islamists, the Gnostics or the Deists could exist while no objective morality existed.

You quoted this, commonsense...did you wish to make a remark on it?

What you said is like saying,
“If A then B”
“Not B”
Therefore Not A.

I didn't say this. I didn't say that objective morality does not exist, far less that God's existence depends on the existence of objective morality. So I'm confused as to why you think this is an argument. It's a non-sequitur, and doesn't represent anything I argued.

You're jumping to an incorrect assumption.

I'm not making the case that because Subjectivism is false, therefore objectivism is true. I've pointed out repeatedly that the road from Subjectivism leads not to objectivism at all, but to Nihilism. The choice is between objectivism and NO morality. But I've so far never suggested that Nihilism isn't an option. In fact, as Nietzsche saw, it's the ONLY rational option left to somebody who has already dismissed belief in God...and I am honouring that fact.

Want to be a Nihilist? You can, logically speaking. And you'll be, at least, rationally consistent. Want to be a Subjectivist? You can...but not with logic. You'll be irrational and inconsistent.

The case for objective morality cannot be made without the premise that it's at least possible that God exists. If you think it can, then I'm wide open to seeing how it could be. And if you can do it, you'll be the greatest moral philosopher the world has ever seen...greater than Kant, Mill, Bentham, Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche, Camus, Aristotle, Aquinas, Rorty, Foucault...your career and reputation will be secured forever, you can be certain. For a grounds for morality that does not require belief in God has long been the "unholy grail" of moral philosophy. The man who finds it will be a secular hero.

All that you’ve said in the previous 4 paragraphs has nothing to do with your ignorance of simple predicate logic.

I'm fine on logic: but I see a problem with your objection, for sure. But what I said in those paragraphs is far from irrelevant. It's the core of my argument.

But you can beat it if you can show that there's one precept of any kind that Subjectivism can obligate us toward. Go ahead.

See if you can follow this: in the modus example above, let A = God exists, and let B = objective morality exists.

You've misread my argument. It's not that "If God exists, then there must be an objective morality." It's the opposite. It's that "If (assumptively) God does NOT exist, then there is no grounds for believing in morality of any kind." And that's perfectly right.

...you unwittingly claimed, that if God exists then there must be an objective morality that exists.

Show me where I claimed that, please.

But as you can see from our experiment above,

What "experiment"?

...or at least from the disagreements of many others across a significant divide,

I'm sorry...are you making the bandwagon fallacy here? Or are you taking "disagreements" to entail the conclusion, "therefore, there's no right answer"?

...there cannot be an objective form of morality that exists at all.

"Because people disagree, there is no truth." That's your assumption?

So have a go. You've got everything to win, and nothing to lose.

I can't help but notice that you didn't try. I know why, too...you can't do it. As I said above, if you could, you'd be the greatest moral philosopher in history. It's too much to expect, though. Subjectivism itself will fail you every time you try.

Morality isn’t necessary for the essence of a human.

Eh? "For the essence..."? What "essence" do you mean?

One can survive and procreate without morals.

So can dogs.

Power would then replace morality as the measure of right and wrong. Sad, but true.

Now you're agreeing with Nietzsche...and ironically, with me, too. If there is no morality, then all that's left is power. And Subjectivism has no ability to rationalize morality. Nietzsche saw that, too. So then, one either despairs or embraces power, and goes "beyond good and evil," as per Nietzsche.

Did you notice how Nietzsche started that line of thinking, though? With the famous claim, "God is dead, and we have killed Him." So even Nietzsche knew that only the existence of God could justify belief in objective morality. Absent God, no morality.

So abortion is murder, but abortion for good reasons-- like a godly married couple getting rid of unwanted embryos-- is godly and good. Got it.

[accelafine]

Is there a single intelligent person commenting on this site? Asking for a friend.

[Immanuel Can]

So abortion is murder, but abortion for good reasons-- like a godly married couple getting rid of unwanted embryos-- is godly and good.

If IVF involves the implanting of offspring fertilized by a husband into a wife, it would be hard to find a grounds for objection. But if you know one, I'll hear it. I'm not an IVFer, and haven't investigated the particulars, because I have no reason to.

On the other hand, if the procedure implicates the death of pre-born children, then it would be immoral. This is why I say that circumstances have to be taken into account.

Interestingly, like so many of our modern ethical dilemmas, this one is artificial. That is, it's created by mankind's own technologies, not in the normal course of events. It's not the kind of problem that would have even occurred in earlier societies, so we've made it ourselves. If we have trouble unpacking all the circumstances of our own hubris, that wouldn't be surprising...or even a little unusual. We have similar difficulties parsing the proper uses of, say, nuclear technology, or cell phones, or some surgeries, or respirators, or even things like automobiles, for that matter. However, none of that implies these things are morally indifferent...just that human wisdom is much shorter than human ingenuity, apparently.

[accelafine]

That's just perverted. Not worth the effort of arguing.

[seeds]

_______

This thread, which is supposed to be about Donald J. Trump, has morphed into a brazen display of hypocrisy and irony, for it has been hijacked by a proponent of "objective morality," of all things, who, himself, is a staunch supporter of Trump, who just so happens to be one of the most immoral minds ever to infest a stinking and bloated sack of farting flesh.

Man-o-man, Bizarro World is weird.
_______

Meanwhile Trump has offered his own version of objective morality in a rally today.
In it he praises Hannibal Lecter as the "late great man".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL0OWcvaG_Y

And, of course, taking into account the deep knowledge of, and reverence for history held by the crowds that Trump attracts, after hearing Trump mention the name "Hannibal," they no doubt must have immediately thought that their stable* genius was referring to this Hannibal...

Hannibal led his Carthaginian army over the Alps and into Italy to take the war directly to the Roman Republic, bypassing Roman and allied land garrisons, and Roman naval dominance.

*Trump is a "stable" genius because, word is, he can tell you the breed of a horse just by squishing his toes in its manure. The same goes with cow pies. Oh, and he even taught a horse how to mimic his rally speeches...


_______

[accelafine]

Ooh. Lovely for the garden

[Harbal]

We have spent enough time putting my version of morality up against the wall for you to shoot at...

Is it dead yet?

If not, why not? I've shown that logically, it makes no sense at all, even on its own terms. Why is it still kicking?

You have said absolutely nothing to change my view, and you have said absolutely nothing to support your own.

[Sculptor]

_______

This thread, which is supposed to be about Donald J. Trump, has morphed into a brazen display of hypocrisy and irony, for it has been hijacked by a proponent of "objective morality," of all things, who, himself, is a staunch supporter of Trump, who just so happens to be one of the most immoral minds ever to infest a stinking and bloated sack of farting flesh.

Man-o-man, Bizarro World is weird.
_______

Meanwhile Trump has offered his own version of objective morality in a rally today.
In it he praises Hannibal Lecter as the "late great man".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL0OWcvaG_Y

And, of course, taking into account the deep knowledge of, and reverence for history held by the crowds that Trump attracts, after hearing Trump mention the name "Hannibal," they no doubt must have immediately thought that their stable* genius was referring to this Hannibal...

Hannibal led his Carthaginian army over the Alps and into Italy to take the war directly to the Roman Republic, bypassing Roman and allied land garrisons, and Roman naval dominance.

*Trump is a "stable" genius because, word is, he can tell you the breed of a horse just by squishing his toes in its manure. The same goes with cow pies. Oh, and he even taught a horse how to mimic his rally speeches...


_______

That horseshit is your breakfast idiot.

[accelafine]

Reminds me of the politicians who were recently found to be posting videos of themselves eating their own pooh and licking toilet seats.

Men are such a delight. Endlessly innovative. It's even better when they call theselves 'trans' and get to do it in women's toilets. Adds so much more to the excitement and 'transeuphoria'.

[accelafine]

troon.jpg (69.54 KiB) Viewed 325 times

[Immanuel Can]

You have said absolutely nothing to change my view, and you have said absolutely nothing to support your own.

The first statement is true, plausibly; the second, verifiably not. There is page after page here of me arguing, with reasons, for objective morality.

But I understand the desperate rush to return to arguments about objective morality. Subjectivism never becomes the option on its own merits; it has none, and can't rationalize even one single moral precept for even one person. So proponents of Subjectivism have to a) focus on Objectivism, and b) pretend that if Objectivism is persistently denied, then Subjectivism becomes the default option.

But since Subjectivism is utterly incoherent, what really ensues is Nihilism. The Subjectivist, however, is terrified of Nihilism, and wants to be able to tell himself he's in a morally-safe world, or that he's still "a good person," even though he has no concept of "good" he can support. So he slides back into irrational Subjectivism...at the cost of becoming an irrational person.

It won't work. And if Objectivism is right, it's certain to put him on the wrong side of morality, and the wrong side of truth.

[Harbal]

You have said absolutely nothing to change my view, and you have said absolutely nothing to support your own.

The first statement is true, plausibly; the second, verifiably not. There is page after page here of me arguing, with reasons, for objective morality.

You haven't got an argument. All you've got is, there is a God, and he decides what's moral and what's not. That's it; that's all you've got. That's not an argument, it's just a silly assertion.

[seeds]

Is there a single intelligent person commenting on this site? Asking for a friend.

Tell your friend, no! - not even a married one.
_______

[seeds]

Ooh. Lovely for the garden

Yes!

Indeed, the amount of fertilizer produced at just one of Trump's rallies could cover several acres.

(Just like Brylcreem - "A Little Dab'll Do Ya")
_______