'If'. It said 'if'. If you look up if, you will find out that you have completely and utterly misunderstood my simple, valid and sound argument.

If my values and moral values are synonymous - that is, if my valuings are moral values - then yes, what I value is necessarily moral. Just as if gold is water, then if I have some gold I necessarily have some water.

Note the word 'If' at the beginning. I am not saying my values are moral values. I am arguing the precise opposite. So well done for not being able to follow arguments at all. I mean, not at all. Good job.

Anyway, debates between us get tedious and - for you - nauseating very fast, so I am off to bed now and you can go and find a toilet to be sick in.

More bad advice. Anything else Jesus said that you want me to refute?

And there we go, focussing on me and not the argument! That's actually what I recommend - attack me, not the argument. I mean you tried the latter and it didn't go well, did it? You punched me on my fist with your face.

Nausea and megalomania - you're in a bad way. You think if you say things they're thereby made true - so that's the megalomania. And speaking to me makes you feel sick ,you said. So there's the nausea. Masochist too, presumably.

Here, for your convenience, is the argument thus far:

1. For something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued.
2. Only a subject can value something
3. Therefore, for something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued by a subject.
4. If moral values are my valuings, then if I value something necessarily it is morally valuable
5. If I value something it is not necessarily morally valuable.
6. Therefore, for something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued by a subject who is not me. — Bartricks
Not all value is moral value. On that ground I reject 4. So, 5 and 4 contradict one another and/or are otherwise incompatible/mutually exclusive. — creativesoul

Which premise says that all value is moral value? None of them. (And for the sake of EricH - who has trouble with this sort of thing - 'none of them' includes 4). 4 and 5 do not contradict. I have no idea how you could think that unless you use the word 'contradict' to mean 'are consistent with one another'.

Strange how? And how on earth am I confused? I am literally the only one who is not confused. This is the dementia ward for the philosophically touched and I'm the doctor trying to explain to everyone that the war is over, I'm not their son, and their partner's been dead for years. Come on, I dare you - de-confuse me.

Haha, I was never off track!! Your criticism doesn't work. Funny. You think you've got me on the ropes. You really, really haven't.

Yes.

You do realize your open question challenge has failed, right? You haven't pressed the Euthyphro, but made instead a completely different criticism

You mistakenly think that my view somehow commits me to the view that 'right' means the same as 'prescribed by reason'. That's just false. As false as thinking that Superman means the same as Clark Kent and that water means the same as H2O.

no I think superman rigidly designates Clark Kent. I just thought I ought to mention that I think reason exists in all possible worlds.

I don't think there can be a possible world in which Reason doesn'the exist.

no, in all possible world Rightness is made of reason's prescriptions.

you are conflating different claims.

I have not said that 'right' means the same as 'prescribed by reason'. I have said that if reason prescribes something it is right. Rightness and reason's prescriptions are one and the same, just as Clark Kent and superman are one and theven same. But Clark Kent doesn't mean superman which is why you van know that clark Kent likes pasta at the same time as not being sure ifor superman does.

likewise, someone can be quite sure xing is wrong yet it could remain an open question for them whether reason proscribes it. If that is an open question then that does not establish that wrongness and being proscribed by reason are not one and the same. Your objection fails.

someone could be quite sure superman prescribes X yet it remain an open question for them whether Clark Kent does. For they may not realize superman and Clark Kent are the same person.

what I just said. I agree they don't mean the same

it doesn't follow, no. Water is H2O but water doesn't mean H2O. Superman is Clark Kent but 'superman prescribes x' doesn't mean the same as 'Clark Kent prescribes x'

yes, repeatedly. Lots and lots of times. I'm still waiting for the problem.

yes, if reason prescribes it it is right, if she proscribes it it is wrong. And if neither, then it is permitted.

yes. That's what I said a while back.

yes.

Unless she issued a contradictory prescription.

But let's just say yes.

no, if reason commands us not to do something she is not also advising us to do it.

it's called divine 'command' theory for a reason.

advising, suggesting, prescribing - these are different. A prescription is an imperative or command. When reason commands us to do something her commanding it is its rightness. Thus if reason commands us to do X it is right for us to X.

no. If reason prescribes an act then it is right.

for example, advising is not the same as prescribing. If reason advises you to do X, Xing is not necessarily right.

no, an act is right if reason prescribes it. I think reasonableness is broader.

just being accurate. Rightness and goodness are different kinds of moral property. One is prescriptive the other evaluative.

yes.

no, they are 'right' If the god - Reason - prescribes them and 'morally good' If she values them.

what. Is. The. Objection? That is what I am waiting for.
An act is right because the god - Reason - prescribes it. And the objection is?

although it is 'a god' not God.

yes, that is what the argument i made entails.

all filler, no killer. Once more, raise an objection to my argument.

an objection to my argument, I stress, not some other position.

false. But do so now then. Resist the temptation to say anything about me, and just raise the objection. Let's keep it cool, calm and rational.

I asked you to show me how it challenges my argument. You then went away and did not do so.

see reply to Hugh above. You, like most others, seem incapable of addressing the argument rather than the arguer.

bye Hugh. Thanks for all the insufferable condescension.

You seem to think I respect your advice.