TRUMP AHEAD?

[Harbal]

No Subjectivist, I suspect, would be happy...........

The happiness of Subjectivists, whoever they are, is no concern of mine.

Right. That's what a Subjectivist would say. His present happiness determines everything.

I wouldn't know.

[commonsense]

That won't work. If it's "situational," then you're in no position to tell anybody about their "position," or what their moral "position" on it should be.

Unless I am obliged to tell others what to believe or think, it works just fine.

If you live by yourself, in a cave, then you don't need morality at all...neither objective or subjective. And whatever you decide to do, you can just do. There can be, for you, no moral dimension to life, because nobody but you counts.

But let one person enter the situation...a countryman, a neighbour, a wife, your children, a government, or God...anybody...and Subjectivism leaves us unable to decide what is right and wrong in the governance of our relations.

Wait a minute! I recently allowed that I cannot claim that Trump is amoral, because his morals, unknown to me as they are, may be quite different than mine.

And therefore I should not decide whether to support him or not—I.e. at least not based on a list of character flaws that in turn are derived from my own subjectivist morals—because of the listed behaviors.

The list, subjective as it is, says nothing about Trump or his morals.

But wait! The conceit that Trump may consider himself to be superhuman when it comes to watching an eclipse reflects on his judgment—judgment that may affect his decision regarding nuclear weapons, even and especially in accordance with his own subjective morality.

His character and judgment are relevant to my thoughts about Trump.

[Immanuel Can]

Unless I am obliged to tell others what to believe or think, it works just fine.

If you live by yourself, in a cave, then you don't need morality at all...neither objective or subjective. And whatever you decide to do, you can just do. There can be, for you, no moral dimension to life, because nobody but you counts.

But let one person enter the situation...a countryman, a neighbour, a wife, your children, a government, or God...anybody...and Subjectivism leaves us unable to decide what is right and wrong in the governance of our relations.

Wait a minute! I recently allowed that I cannot claim that Trump is amoral, because his morals, unknown to me as they are, may be quite different than mine.

And therefore I should not decide whether to support him or not—I.e. at least not based on a list of character flaws that in turn are derived from my own subjectivist morals—because of the listed behaviors.

The list, subjective as it is, says nothing about Trump or his morals.

But wait! The conceit that Trump may consider himself to be superhuman when it comes to watching an eclipse reflects on his judgment—judgment that may affect his decision regarding nuclear weapons, even and especially in accordance with his own subjective morality.

His character and judgment are relevant to my thoughts about Trump.

But being a Subjectivist, you have no criteria for what "good character" or "bad character" are...at least, none that don't have to be completely arbitrary and devoid of objective justification. You can say what you feel about a personality, but you aren't positioned to assert the relevance of that to anybody else, are you? Likewise, how are you going to pass an assessment on his "judgment," when you deny that any objective grounds for doing so even exist?

Moreover, who told you that "my own subjectivist morals," as you call them, comprise a list to which anyone else is morally obligated to conform?

All you've really done is taken an inventory of your present-moment, personal feelings, and spoken of how you feel about Trump in light of them. But nobody else should need to agree with your subjective feelings, should they? And if you think they should, why?

[commonsense]

If you live by yourself, in a cave, then you don't need morality at all...neither objective or subjective. And whatever you decide to do, you can just do. There can be, for you, no moral dimension to life, because nobody but you counts.

But let one person enter the situation...a countryman, a neighbour, a wife, your children, a government, or God...anybody...and Subjectivism leaves us unable to decide what is right and wrong in the governance of our relations.

Wait a minute! I recently allowed that I cannot claim that Trump is amoral, because his morals, unknown to me as they are, may be quite different than mine.

And therefore I should not decide whether to support him or not—I.e. at least not based on a list of character flaws that in turn are derived from my own subjectivist morals—because of the listed behaviors.

The list, subjective as it is, says nothing about Trump or his morals.

But wait! The conceit that Trump may consider himself to be superhuman when it comes to watching an eclipse reflects on his judgment—judgment that may affect his decision regarding nuclear weapons, even and especially in accordance with his own subjective morality.

His character and judgment are relevant to my thoughts about Trump.

But being a Subjectivist, you have no criteria for what "good character" or "bad character" are...at least, none that don't have to be completely arbitrary and devoid of objective justification. You can say what you feel about a personality, but you aren't positioned to assert the relevance of that to anybody else, are you? Likewise, how are you going to pass an assessment on his "judgment," when you deny that any objective grounds for doing so even exist?

Moreover, who told you that "my own subjectivist morals," as you call them, comprise a list to which anyone else is morally obligated to conform?

All you've really done is taken an inventory of your present-moment, personal feelings, and spoken of how you feel about Trump in light of them. But nobody else should need to agree with your subjective feelings, should they? And if you think they should, why?

Well, I don’t expect Trump to behave according to my own present time subjective morality. I do expect that I can predict with some accuracy predict his future character traits on which his future behavior will be based. While no one is obligated to follow my morality, I think his character traits reflect his judgment.

In my own subjective opinion, at the present time, I believe the world should be safe from the whims of a superhuman, such as one who believes he can watch an eclipse without eye protection. I do not expect anyone to have the same opinion. Although if they are like me, they will likely not vote for Trump. But that is why elections allow everyone who votes to vote, according to their own opinions.

[Immanuel Can]

Wait a minute! I recently allowed that I cannot claim that Trump is amoral, because his morals, unknown to me as they are, may be quite different than mine.

And therefore I should not decide whether to support him or not—I.e. at least not based on a list of character flaws that in turn are derived from my own subjectivist morals—because of the listed behaviors.

The list, subjective as it is, says nothing about Trump or his morals.

But wait! The conceit that Trump may consider himself to be superhuman when it comes to watching an eclipse reflects on his judgment—judgment that may affect his decision regarding nuclear weapons, even and especially in accordance with his own subjective morality.

His character and judgment are relevant to my thoughts about Trump.

But being a Subjectivist, you have no criteria for what "good character" or "bad character" are...at least, none that don't have to be completely arbitrary and devoid of objective justification. You can say what you feel about a personality, but you aren't positioned to assert the relevance of that to anybody else, are you? Likewise, how are you going to pass an assessment on his "judgment," when you deny that any objective grounds for doing so even exist?

Moreover, who told you that "my own subjectivist morals," as you call them, comprise a list to which anyone else is morally obligated to conform?

All you've really done is taken an inventory of your present-moment, personal feelings, and spoken of how you feel about Trump in light of them. But nobody else should need to agree with your subjective feelings, should they? And if you think they should, why?

Well, I don’t expect Trump to behave according to my own present time subjective morality.

But do you expect me to agree? Do you expect other readers here to agree? Do you expect some group of "good" or "right-thinking" others to agree? If you don't, I can't imagine why you even tell us what your subjective feelings are -- what possible reason would you have for telling us something you don't think we're under any obligation to believe at all?

...no one is obligated to follow my morality,

Right. That's the Subjectivist problem. Nothing they affirm in the moral realm has any logical obligation for anybody else.

I think his character traits reflect his judgment.

Which character traits, and what judgment? You have denied the existence of objective criteria for any moral assessment...and that includes character assessment and assessment of judgment, of course. It's all purely subjective.

I do not expect anyone to have the same opinion.

Why even express it, then? You've just asserted that it's utterly irrelevant to us, and thus of no value for you to communicate to us. That is, if Subjectivism is true.

Of course, I would say Subjectivism is not true, and you have a perfect right to share your opinion, and that if it's a good and rational opinion, then other sensible persons certainly have a duty to agree. But it's not at all clear to me how any Subjectivist can say that.

[commonsense]

I think I have said before words to the effect that I don’t expect anyone to conform to my morality. If I haven’t, I should like to say so now.

Why do I express my opinion to those who are under no obligation to agree with me and follow my morality? There are two reasons: some may change their mind and decide that my opinion applies to them as well, and I am a narcissist. While no one is under any obligation to adopt my personal preferences, there may be overlap or they may join me willingly.

It is Trump’s morality that informs his judgment and subsequent behavior. In my own personal opinion, his judgment may lead to behavior that is dangerous according to my estimation.

BTW, your analysis of the list I submitted is spot on.

[commonsense]

If my neighbors behavior is bad, in my opinion, then it is right for me to abhor their behavior.

[commonsense]

While there really is no such thing as objective morality, those in power may impose their subjective morality, as if it were objective morality. This is the case collectively, when Congress agrees upon its laws.

[Sculptor]

Immanuel C*nt, Vertias, and Trump all share the same delusion that their personal morality is the "THE" perfect one and unimpeachably "objective".
Nah!

[Harbal]

no one is obligated to follow my morality,

Right. That's the Subjectivist problem. Nothing they affirm in the moral realm has any logical obligation for anybody else.

He still gets to vote, though.

[Immanuel Can]

no one is obligated to follow my morality,

Right. That's the Subjectivist problem. Nothing they affirm in the moral realm has any logical obligation for anybody else.

He still gets to vote, though.

Yes, he does. And that's just fine: every American citizen should have that right. But to suppose that any argument against any candidate that is made by a Subjectivist means something important...that's quite a different question.

All it really means is "Today, I feel icky about Biden/Trump."

[Immanuel Can]

Why do I express my opinion to those who are under no obligation to agree with me and follow my morality? There are two reasons: some may change their mind and decide that my opinion applies to them as well, and I am a narcissist. While no one is under any obligation to adopt my personal preferences, there may be overlap or they may join me willingly.

It is Trump’s morality

You have no access to the question of his morality. That matter is subjective, like yours, allegedly. So he's as "moral" as any other Subjectivist.

In fact, "moral" has no meaning anymore. One may as well not add it to any sentence, since it's now devoid of content. It's as useless as the world "um," as in "Trump has...um...character...and...um...judgment." How is anybody to deduce from that that Trump has bad or good character, or bad or good judgment?

As you say, they're simply not. If they agree with you, that's accidental. If they don't, that, too, is merely accidental.

[Harbal]

Right. That's the Subjectivist problem. Nothing they affirm in the moral realm has any logical obligation for anybody else.

He still gets to vote, though.

Yes, he does. And that's just fine: every American citizen should have that right. But to suppose that any argument against any candidate that is made by a Subjectivist means something important...that's quite a different question.

But you told him nobody has to take any notice of his subjective opinion, but they do when he casts his vote.

[Immanuel Can]

He still gets to vote, though.

Yes, he does. And that's just fine: every American citizen should have that right. But to suppose that any argument against any candidate that is made by a Subjectivist means something important...that's quite a different question.

But you told him nobody has to take any notice of his subjective opinion, but they do when he casts his vote.

That's because while opinions are subjective, the process of voting is objective. Yet another reason why Subjectivism is stupid: it ignores the impact of what you do on other people.

[Gary Childress]

Right. That's the Subjectivist problem. Nothing they affirm in the moral realm has any logical obligation for anybody else.

He still gets to vote, though.

Yes, he does. And that's just fine: every American citizen should have that right. But to suppose that any argument against any candidate that is made by a Subjectivist means something important...that's quite a different question.

All it really means is "Today, I feel icky about Biden/Trump."

"Subjective" or "objective", either way people have beliefs and make choices based on those beliefs. Your rant about "objectivity" seems little more than a ploy to make people think your personal beliefs are the "right" ones and theirs are the wrong ones. Your personal beliefs are your personal beliefs and mine are mine. We each get one vote. That's life.