TRUMP AHEAD?

[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.

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.

But they don't have to, actually...anymore than they have to make some unrelated decision based on a headache or an ingrown toenail. Subjectivism is just a twinge. It doesn't signal any objective reality. That's definitional.

And certainly, nobody has to make a voting decision based on your ingrown toenail or headache.

[Gary Childress]

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.

But they don't have to, actually...anymore than they have to make some unrelated decision based on a headache or an ingrown toenail. Subjectivism is just a twinge. It doesn't signal any objective reality. That's definitional.

And certainly, nobody has to make a voting decision based on your ingrown toenail or headache.

Nor do they need to make a decision based on your ingrown toenail or headache. That's life. I don't expect people to make a decision based on my own ingrown toenail or headache. God knows if I did, I'd pass out from holding my breath for that to happen. It comes down to shared concerns and shared beliefs. If beliefs are shared, then they stand more chance to win in a democracy.

[Harbal]

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.

The point is, our place in society, and our rights, have nothing to do with the subjectivity of our morality. Besides, how often do people tend to declare the degree to which there opinion is objective before they proceed to express it? I don't know what possesses you to come out with some of the crap you do come out with.

[commonsense]

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."

Exactly. I for one expect nothing more.

[commonsense]

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.

I agree. No matter what Trump’s morality is, I can’t know it. All I’m saying is that whatever his morality is, his character and judgment relate to his morality. So, for all the reasons I think Trumps morality is bad, I think his judgment and behavior are likely as bad in comparison to my morality. Bad judgment could lead to an exchange of nuclear assets. For that reason I will vote against Trump. In addition to your being right above, I believe I’m standing on firm logical ground.

[Immanuel Can]

"Subjective" or "objective", either way people have beliefs and make choices based on those beliefs.

But they don't have to, actually...anymore than they have to make some unrelated decision based on a headache or an ingrown toenail. Subjectivism is just a twinge. It doesn't signal any objective reality. That's definitional.

And certainly, nobody has to make a voting decision based on your ingrown toenail or headache.

Nor do they need to make a decision based on your ingrown toenail or headache.

Right. I didn't mean yours personally, Gary...I meant the generic "you," as in "any one person."

[Immanuel Can]

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.

The point is, our place in society, and our rights, have nothing to do with the subjectivity of our morality.

I hate to point this out, but if morality is subjective, so is your belief in rights. Rights are a moral concept, not one you can glean from objective observation.

[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.

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

Exactly. I for one expect nothing more.

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.

[Immanuel Can]

Bad judgment could lead to an exchange of nuclear assets.

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.

[Harbal]

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.

The point is, our place in society, and our rights, have nothing to do with the subjectivity of our morality.

I hate to point this out, but if morality is subjective, so is your belief in rights. Rights are a moral concept, not one you can glean from objective observation.

And I hate to point this out to you, but I am free to believe in, and value, whatever I like.

[Immanuel Can]

The point is, our place in society, and our rights, have nothing to do with the subjectivity of our morality.

I hate to point this out, but if morality is subjective, so is your belief in rights. Rights are a moral concept, not one you can glean from objective observation.

And I hate to point this out to you, but I am free to believe in, and value, whatever I like.

Of course you are. It's just that nobody else has to. Even you don't have to, as soon as you have a different twinge, in fact. So we're not really bound by any...what's the word...oh, yeah..."morality."

[Age]

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.

But they don't have to, actually...anymore than they have to make some unrelated decision based on a headache or an ingrown toenail. Subjectivism is just a twinge. It doesn't signal any objective reality. That's definitional.

And certainly, nobody has to make a voting decision based on your ingrown toenail or headache.

Not that you would ever answer openly and honestly here, because of your complete lack of ability to, but if 'subjectivism' is 'just a twinge', to you, then what is 'objectivisim', to you, exactly?

And, what do you make your voting decisions on, exactly, "immanuel can"?

'Twinges', 'objective reality', or something else?

[Gary Childress]

But they don't have to, actually...anymore than they have to make some unrelated decision based on a headache or an ingrown toenail. Subjectivism is just a twinge. It doesn't signal any objective reality. That's definitional.

And certainly, nobody has to make a voting decision based on your ingrown toenail or headache.

Nor do they need to make a decision based on your ingrown toenail or headache.

Right. I didn't mean yours personally, Gary...I meant the generic "you," as in "any one person."

Fair enough. I hear you.

[Gary Childress]

Me: Is morality subjective or objective? How do objectivity and subjectivity apply in morality or apply to morality?

ChatGPT:
The debate between moral subjectivism and moral objectivism has been ongoing for centuries and remains a complex philosophical issue. Here's a simplified breakdown:

Moral Subjectivism: This view posits that morality is subjective, meaning that moral judgments are grounded in individuals' personal feelings, opinions, or cultural norms. In other words, what is considered morally right or wrong can vary from person to person or from culture to culture. For a subjectivist, there are no universal moral truths; instead, morality is relative to the individual or society.
Moral Objectivism: Conversely, moral objectivism argues that morality is objective, meaning that there are moral truths or principles that exist independently of human beliefs, opinions, or cultural practices. According to this view, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of individual perspectives or cultural norms. Proponents of moral objectivism often appeal to concepts like reason, human nature, or the idea of a transcendent moral law to ground moral truths.
Applying these concepts to morality, consider the following:

Subjectivity in Morality: Subjectivity suggests that moral judgments are influenced by personal feelings, cultural upbringing, societal norms, and individual experiences. What one person considers morally acceptable might be viewed differently by another person, depending on their background and values. For example, attitudes towards topics like euthanasia, abortion, or capital punishment can vary widely across different cultures and individuals.
Objectivity in Morality: Objectivity implies that there are moral principles or truths that exist independently of individual opinions or cultural practices. Proponents of moral objectivism argue that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of how people feel about them. They might point to concepts like human rights, justice, or the principle of reciprocity (the "Golden Rule") as objective moral standards that apply universally.
In real-world ethical debates, understanding the interplay between subjectivity and objectivity in morality is crucial. While recognizing the diversity of moral beliefs and practices, philosophers, ethicists, and individuals strive to engage in reasoned dialogue and ethical reflection to discern objective moral truths, if they exist, or at least to navigate moral disagreements respectfully.

[Harbal]

I hate to point this out, but if morality is subjective, so is your belief in rights. Rights are a moral concept, not one you can glean from objective observation.

And I hate to point this out to you, but I am free to believe in, and value, whatever I like.

Of course you are. It's just that nobody else has to. Even you don't have to, as soon as you have a different twinge, in fact. So we're not really bound by any...what's the word...oh, yeah..."morality."

Nobody is bound by your twinges, either, I'm very pleased to say?