TRUMP AHEAD?

[Harbal]

Be specific: what has he done, as president of the US, that I should be objecting to?

If you don't object to him as a human being, then you aren't really going to understand my objections to him.

I didn't say, either way. But it's not relevant.

You're a Subjectivist. You say you believe that morality is made up by the various "subjects" who hold to it. So what's your evidence that Trump does not hold up to the subjective morality he believes in? Have you become a mind-reader lately?

He's an obnoxious person, and if you can't see that for yourself, it certainly throws your judgement into question.

Pretending to believe in God?

Trump? Let's say he's only "pretending to believe in God," as you say.

How do you know? Are you in his mind again?

So you find his "faith" convincing, do you?

Is that objectively immoral?

But you're a Subjectivist, so how can you say it is?

I don't believe there is any such thing as "objectively moral", as you already know.

Here's the interesting thing: you, a defender of Moral Subjectivism,

I am not a defender of it, I am just someone who knows that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.

suddenly want me to believe there's something objectively morally wrong, in this situation. How can you do that?

I think there is a lot morally wrong with Trump, and I also think you are perfectly prepared to overlook it because you like the idea of his pandering to the religious nut jobs in return for their votes.

[Immanuel Can]

If you don't object to him as a human being, then you aren't really going to understand my objections to him.

I didn't say, either way. But it's not relevant.

You're a Subjectivist. You say you believe that morality is made up by the various "subjects" who hold to it. So what's your evidence that Trump does not hold up to the subjective morality he believes in? Have you become a mind-reader lately?

He's an obnoxious person, and if you can't see that for yourself, it certainly throws your judgement into question.

Objectively "obnoxious," or only "subjectively"?

Pretending to believe in God?

Trump? Let's say he's only "pretending to believe in God," as you say.

How do you know? Are you in his mind again?

So you find his "faith" convincing, do you?

I'm not the one claiming to know -- you are.

Is that objectively immoral?

But you're a Subjectivist, so how can you say it is?

I don't believe there is any such thing as "objectively moral", as you already know.

Right. So how can you argue that Trump is "obnoxious," or "amoral," or "immoral," or "bad," or "fanatical," or any other term that implies objective evaluation? But if none of your pejoratives is intended to be objective, or to suggest any objective moral duty on my part, then what on earth can you be meaning to say?

Here's the interesting thing: you, a defender of Moral Subjectivism,

I am not a defender of it, I am just someone who knows that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.

That's Subjectivism.

suddenly want me to believe there's something objectively morally wrong, in this situation. How can you do that?

I think there is a lot morally wrong with Trump,...

Yes, I can see that: but that's not the question. The question is HOW? You don't believe that moral assessments are objective at all. Yet you say there's "wrong" in him. What does that word, "wrong" imply, except that you think Trump is objectively morally reprehensible?

And whence the duty you wish to compel on me to agree with that assessment?

You see, Subjectivists, Relativists, and even Nihilists...they don't believe their own crock of nonsense. Let the right case appear (in your case, Trump), and they're suddenly thoroughgoing Moral Objectivists -- even to the point of telling other people (like me) what you think it's their moral duty to think.

You're caught in your own trap, Sport. I hate to point it out, but there it is.

[commonsense]

I actually have no horse in the race. But I don't think Biden is anywhere close to mentally competent (which is why Sculpy is so dead against "whataboutery" at this particular moment, because she knows it, too), and I don't think Trump is the next Hitler. What's more, I actually think we all know both things; so it makes all the anxiety really, really odd...and rather funny.

Couldn’t an amoral narcissist qualify to be the next Hitler?

There are nothing but amoral narcissists in the uni-party in Washington these days, and they're all little Hitlers in their own way. What gives you reason to think that Trump would be especially bad in that respect?

Not especially bad, but especially qualified in that respect. You’ll agree that his supporters believe he is especially good, not bad.

[Immanuel Can]

Couldn’t an amoral narcissist qualify to be the next Hitler?

There are nothing but amoral narcissists in the uni-party in Washington these days, and they're all little Hitlers in their own way. What gives you reason to think that Trump would be especially bad in that respect?

Not especially bad, but especially qualified in that respect. You’ll agree that his supporters believe he is especially good, not bad.

I'm not agreeing to any statements others try to script for me. I can make my own claims, thanks.

But you have alleged that the danger is an "amoral narcissist," in context, alleging that of Trump. But given the proliferation of such in Washington, what's your particular justification for that concern?

[Harbal]

I didn't say, either way. But it's not relevant.

You're a Subjectivist. You say you believe that morality is made up by the various "subjects" who hold to it. So what's your evidence that Trump does not hold up to the subjective morality he believes in? Have you become a mind-reader lately?

He's an obnoxious person, and if you can't see that for yourself, it certainly throws your judgement into question.

Objectively "obnoxious," or only "subjectively"?

Just obnoxious.

So you find his "faith" convincing, do you?

I'm not the one claiming to know

And not even willing to have your opinion known, it would seem.

I don't believe there is any such thing as "objectively moral", as you already know.

Right. So how can you argue that Trump is "obnoxious," or "amoral," or "immoral," or "bad," or "fanatical,"

I'm not arguing, I'm simply telling you.

I am not a defender of it, I am just someone who knows that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.

That's Subjectivism.

You do love your labels, don't you?

I think there is a lot morally wrong with Trump,...

Yes, I can see that: but that's not the question.

No, it's more of a statement.

The question is HOW? You don't believe that moral assessments are objective at all. Yet you say there's "wrong" in him. What does that word, "wrong" imply, except that you think Trump is objectively morally reprehensible?

Yes, I think Trump is morally reprehensible, and I would say the question is, why don't you think it?

And whence the duty you wish to compel on me to agree with that assessment?

I'm not placing any duty on you, I'm just wondering why you can't see it for yourself.

You see, Subjectivists, Relativists, and even Nihilists...they don't believe their own crock of nonsense. Let the right case appear (in your case, Trump), and they're suddenly thoroughgoing Moral Objectivists -- even to the point of telling other people (like me) what you think it's their moral duty to think.

I'm just telling you what I think of Trump, I'm not interested in all your "Subjectivists, Relativists, and even Nihilists" nonsense.

You're caught in your own trap, Sport. I hate to point it out, but there it is.

When being caught in a trap feels exactly the same as not being caught in a trap, I don't suppose it matters much.

[Immanuel Can]

He's an obnoxious person, and if you can't see that for yourself, it certainly throws your judgement into question.

Objectively "obnoxious," or only "subjectively"?

Just obnoxious.

It has to be one or the other. There's no third option. So which is it?

So you find his "faith" convincing, do you?

I'm not the one claiming to know

And not even willing to have your opinion known, it would seem.

Quite the contrary: I'm not renowned for my reticence, as you know. But I'm asking about your view.

I don't believe there is any such thing as "objectively moral", as you already know.

Right. So how can you argue that Trump is "obnoxious," or "amoral," or "immoral," or "bad," or "fanatical,"

I'm not arguing, I'm simply telling you.

You can't. If Subjectivism is true, you've got nothing to say morally to anybody,-- even to yourself, since you can change your mind. The most you can be saying is, "Trump, for now, makes Harbal feel obnoxiousness." That's extremely wimpy, but that's the limit of what Subjectivism will allow.

I am not a defender of it, I am just someone who knows that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.

That's Subjectivism.

You do love your labels, don't you?

When they're right? They're very useful. And I marvel that you're suddenly so keen to disavow this one, when you've defended Subjectivism for page after page...can it be that you didn't ever really believe anything you said?

I think there is a lot morally wrong with Trump,...

Yes, I can see that: but that's not the question. The question is HOW? You don't believe that moral assessments are objective at all. Yet you say there's "wrong" in him. What does that word, "wrong" imply, except that you think Trump is objectively morally reprehensible?

Yes, I think Trump is morally reprehensible,

Objectively morally reprehensible, or subjectively?

And whence the duty you wish to compel on me to agree with that assessment?

I'm not placing any duty on you, I'm just wondering why you can't see it for yourself.

Oh. So you're saying I "should" (another objective moral assessment) and I'm "failing to see it," which you are trying to imply is morally wrong...objectively.

You're caught in your own trap, Sport. I hate to point it out, but there it is.

When being caught in a trap feels exactly the same as not being caught in a trap, I don't suppose it matters much.

Well, if you depart all logic, then I guess, yes...it might not matter to you. But if you think, as I do, that people who offer arguments should be consistent and make sense, then it ought to matter, even if, in this case, you want to pretend it doesn't.

You can see it. You're no fool. You cannot condemn Trump, or me, or anybody, if you are not appealing to an objective moral assessment. And yet, that's what you're trying desperately to do, even while trying to disavow it. You're caught.

[Harbal]

Objectively "obnoxious," or only "subjectively"?

Just obnoxious.

It has to be one or the other. There's no third option. So which is it?

Just obnoxious.

And not even willing to have your opinion known, it would seem.

Quite the contrary: I'm not renowned for my reticence, as you know. But I'm asking about your view.

I think I have made my view perfectly clear.

I'm not arguing, I'm simply telling you.

You can't.

Nevertheless, I am.

Yes, I think Trump is morally reprehensible,

Objectively morally reprehensible, or subjectively?

Morally reprehensible by most decent people's standards.

I'm not placing any duty on you, I'm just wondering why you can't see it for yourself.

Oh. So you're saying I "should"

If you have any sense at all of right and wrong, then I certainly think you should.

[Immanuel Can]

Just obnoxious.

It has to be one or the other. There's no third option. So which is it?

Just obnoxious.

Are you saying only "I feel obnoxiousness," or "He IS obnoxious"?

And not even willing to have your opinion known, it would seem.

Quite the contrary: I'm not renowned for my reticence, as you know. But I'm asking about your view.

I think I have made my view perfectly clear.

You think wrongly. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, right now: you're pretending you've got some grounds to condemn Trump and to try to make me feel shame for not criticizing him more, even while pretending to be a Subjectivist.

We used to call that "hypocrisy." I don't know what other word it goes by today.

Yes, I think Trump is morally reprehensible,

Objectively morally reprehensible, or subjectively?

Morally reprehensible by most decent people's standards.

Now you've smuggled in another value-heavy word: "decent."

You just can't help yourself, can you? You are a Moral Objectivist, even while pleading you're not.

I'm not placing any duty on you, I'm just wondering why you can't see it for yourself.

Oh. So you're saying I "should"

If you have any sense at all of right and wrong, then I certainly think you should.

Objectivist.

[Harbal]

It has to be one or the other. There's no third option. So which is it?

Just obnoxious.

Are you saying only "I feel obnoxiousness," or "He IS obnoxious"?

Both.

I think I have made my view perfectly clear.

You think wrongly.

So you are still uncertain about my opinion on Trump?

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, right now: you're pretending you've got some grounds to condemn Trump and to try to make me feel shame for not criticizing him more, even while pretending to be a Subjectivist.

We used to call that "hypocrisy."

Well don't let me stop you restoring the tradition.

Now you've smuggled in another value-heavy word: "decent."

You just can't help yourself, can you? You are a Moral Objectivist, even while pleading you're not.

Okay, so where do you suppose I'm getting my objective morality from?

If you have any sense at all of right and wrong, then I certainly think you should.

Objectivist.

So you think I'm objectively right?

[Immanuel Can]

Just obnoxious.

Are you saying only "I feel obnoxiousness," or "He IS obnoxious"?

Both.

Then you're admitting to meaning the second one, and the first is irrelevant. You're admitting that you are making an objective judgment. It has to be, if you have any reasonable expectation of anybody having to agree with your assessment -- and that, you are clearly hoping to achieve.

I think I have made my view perfectly clear.

You think wrongly.

So you are still uncertain about my opinion on Trump?

Disingenuous answer. You're trying to evade the objective-subjective problem into which you've fallen.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, right now: you're pretending you've got some grounds to condemn Trump and to try to make me feel shame for not criticizing him more, even while pretending to be a Subjectivist.

We used to call that "hypocrisy."

Well don't let me stop you restoring the tradition.

Well, if the shoe fits...

You just can't help yourself, can you? You are a Moral Objectivist, even while pleading you're not.

Okay, so where do you suppose I'm getting my objective morality from?

Objectivist.

So you think I'm objectively right?

Disingenuous again. You know exactly what I'm saying: you're smarter than you're pretending to be here.

[Harbal]

You just can't help yourself, can you? You are a Moral Objectivist, even while pleading you're not.

Okay, so where do you suppose I'm getting my objective morality from?

[Immanuel Can]

You just can't help yourself, can you? You are a Moral Objectivist, even while pleading you're not.

Okay, so where do you suppose I'm getting my objective morality from?

I think morality is objective. That means it exists independent of your assessment. Right will be right, even when you don't know it; and wrong will be wrong, whether you know it or not.

But your appeal to Moral Objectivity is derived from your desire to impose your own moral intuitions on others, it seems. For you seem very earnest to tell me what you think I "ought to" feel or think, and what is objectively the moral status of one D. Trump. None of that you can do if morality is merely subjective.

So you don't really believe it is. You say all morality is subjective, but you act as if yours is objective.

[Harbal]

You just can't help yourself, can you? You are a Moral Objectivist, even while pleading you're not.

Okay, so where do you suppose I'm getting my objective morality from?

I think morality is objective. That means it exists independent of your assessment. Right will be right, even when you don't know it; and wrong will be wrong, whether you know it or not.

But your appeal to Moral Objectivity is derived from your desire to impose your own moral intuitions on others, it seems. For you seem very earnest to tell me what you think I "ought to" feel or think, and what is objectively the moral status of one D. Trump. None of that you can do if morality is merely subjective.

So you don't really believe it is. You say all morality is subjective, but you act as if yours is objective.

Yes, I do sometimes behave as if my moral opinions are a matter of objective truth, I'm only human.

And Trump is still a scumbag, however you look at it.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, so where do you suppose I'm getting my objective morality from?

I think morality is objective. That means it exists independent of your assessment. Right will be right, even when you don't know it; and wrong will be wrong, whether you know it or not.

But your appeal to Moral Objectivity is derived from your desire to impose your own moral intuitions on others, it seems. For you seem very earnest to tell me what you think I "ought to" feel or think, and what is objectively the moral status of one D. Trump. None of that you can do if morality is merely subjective.

So you don't really believe it is. You say all morality is subjective, but you act as if yours is objective.

Yes, I do sometimes behave as if my moral opinions are a matter of objective truth, I'm only human.

If everybody does it, then everybody knows Subjectivism is false. They just don't perhaps know WHY it is false. But they know. And even if they can't say, they ACT as if it's false, anyway.

[Harbal]

I think morality is objective. That means it exists independent of your assessment. Right will be right, even when you don't know it; and wrong will be wrong, whether you know it or not.

But your appeal to Moral Objectivity is derived from your desire to impose your own moral intuitions on others, it seems. For you seem very earnest to tell me what you think I "ought to" feel or think, and what is objectively the moral status of one D. Trump. None of that you can do if morality is merely subjective.

So you don't really believe it is. You say all morality is subjective, but you act as if yours is objective.

Yes, I do sometimes behave as if my moral opinions are a matter of objective truth, I'm only human.

If everybody does it, then everybody knows Subjectivism is false. They just don't perhaps know WHY it is false. But they know. And even if they can't say, they ACT as if it's false, anyway.

It doesn't matter what you say, it won't change anything. Trump is obnoxious; that's all there is to it.