But remember that in your task, you're the one who believes that Hitler did nothing wrong. I wouldn't even want to associate with you if that was really your view. — S

I thought that was odd, too. I suspected he mixed up his two statements.

goodness gracious of course i don't - you just couldn't resist one last ad hominem could you. Did that really add any philosophic significance ? Just don't understand the motivation for such comments.

Just don't understand the motivation for such comments. — Rank Amateur

I don’t know S personally, but maybe he’s bad at sports and was always picked last in gym class. Philosophy is his forum for defeating others and winning. At least in his mind.

goodness gracious of course i don't - you just couldn't resist one last ad hominem could you. Did that really add any philosophic significance? Just don't understand the motivation for such comments. — Rank Amateur

Whoosh.

I clearly wasn't accusing you of actually having that view.

I don’t know S personally, but maybe he’s bad at sports and was always picked last in gym class. Philosophy is his forum for defeating others and winning. At least in his mind. — Noah Te Stroete

And of course, you have to get in on the act as well. I didn't go to sports. I bunked off and smoked weed and played videogames with friends. But apparently I'm not allowed to talk about how much of a cool rebel I am. @Baden

Whoosh.

I clearly wasn't accusing you of actually having that view. — S

ok - no worries - enjoy the rest of the day

ok - no worries - enjoy the rest of the day — Rank Amateur

And there they are! I was just waiting for those words. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist.

And of course, you have to get in on the act as well. — S

I couldn’t help myself.

And I stopped believing something just because some old dead fart said it when I was 14.
— Herg

And now you're fourteen-and-a-half and brimming with wisdom. Step aside, Hume. Behold, Herg! — S

How I wish I was still fourteen-and-a-half. But if anyone in this forum thinks they can move their case forward by quoting edicts from a dead philosopher rather than by advancing cogent arguments, they are in the wrong place. These are not the foothills of Mount Sinai, and no-one here is Moses.

These are not the foothills of Mount Sinai, and no-one here is Moses. — Herg

I am not Moses, but I AM Noah, father of humankind. :razz:

How I wish I was still fourteen-and-a-half. But if anyone in this forum thinks they can move their case forward by quoting edicts from a dead philosopher rather than by advancing cogent arguments, they are in the wrong place. These are not the foothills of Mount Sinai, and no-one here is Moses. — Herg

Alright then, fourteen-and-three-quarters. I had already made several related points. That quote just puts it in a way that hits home for many people. That's why it stands out amongst his writings. It has utility.

Your reply, on the other hand, only stood out for the wrong reasons.

I am not Moses, but I AM Noah, father of humankind. — Noah Te Stroete

Ah, but you are not just Noah, father of humankind. You are Noah Te Stroete, father of humankind who spends all day rolling around in a marsh. :snicker:

:lol: The floods never receded where I live.

Make an argument - absent of any objective moral standard to change my mind — Rank Amateur

Well, here I may diverge from TS and S, but I would argue one of three ways.

1. Everyone else thinks Hitler is a monster (only works if it's true, but can be very effective, especially with the easily led)

2. I think Hitler is a monster and look how cool I am. Not as facetious a line of argument as it sounds. Basically you sell your way of doing thing by the outcome on you. It's the way brave people who risk their lives for others sell it.

3. You're a human being, and my knowledge of psychology/anthropology indicates that humans don't generally like people like Hilter (in the fullness of time), so if you think you like Hitler, your probably wrong. I know TS and I have disagreed about this, but I believe it is possible to be wrong about your own self-reported feelings.

How's that? Convinced yet?

no - sorry as a moral relativist i appreciate that is your subjective moral view, but it is not my subjective moral view. And as one believer in subjective morality to another we both know there is no objective answer on if Hitler was moral or immoral - so we will happily have to go on acknowledging that we are both right subject to our own views of morality.

(and of course - hope it does not need to be said that IRL I know Hitler was an abominably immoral man)

How's that? Convinced yet? — Isaac

No, he's not, because he is just playing a role to make a point which is actually trivial, which is why I'm glad I didn't go all out by throwing myself into a role like he wanted me to. The trivial point is that some people won't be convinced, no matter what. And the illogical connection is that moral objectivism somehow magically has the answer.

In real life, the role that he is playing is only a reflection of some, but not all, cases. In other cases, people are persuaded to change their mind. And again, this has nothing to do with moral subjectivism or moral objectivism.

I hope he's actually listening and absorbing this, instead of doing his "okay, whatever, have a nice day" thing.

(and of course - hope it does not need to be said that IRL I know Hitler was an abominably immoral man) — Rank Amateur

Indeed, it still doesn't need to be said, and yet you've now said it on two separate occasions. Relax, no one thinks that you're a supporter of Hitler. We understand what role play is.

Isaac - I can help you with the right answer - here it is:

Rank - Me and a few million other relative morality believers all seem to hold 2 of the same subjective beliefs - the first one is we think Hitler is a monster, and the second one is we subjectively believe we are going to hang anyone who doesn't subjectively think he is a monster too.

Now I am convinced.

Wish there was kind of name we could use for such a widely and commonly held belief.

no - sorry as a moral relativist i appreciate that is your subjective moral view, but it is not my subjective moral view. And as one believer in subjective morality to another we both know there is no objective answer on if Hitler was moral or immoral - so we will happily have to go on acknowledging that we are both right subject to our own views of morality. — Rank Amateur

Right, but how does objectivism help us with this kind of problem? If I was an objectivist about morals, you could just disagree with my reasoning. I mean, just take a glance over any of the posts on this website, are people being regularly persuaded by rational argument, or are people sticking to almost exactly what they started out saying regardless of any argument to the contrary?

Right, but how does objectivism help us with this kind of problem? If I was an objectivist about morals, you could just disagree with my reasoning. I mean, just take a glance over any of the posts on this website, are people being regularly persuaded by rational argument, or are people sticking to almost exactly what they started out saying regardless of any argument to the contrary? — Isaac

I agree - the difference is now it is not 2 subjective moral views in opposition - now it is one moral view aligned with an objective norm and one not. I can still chose, as many do, to be outside the objective norm, but that is a very different position than I hold a different - but equally valid subjective view.

The trivial point is that some people won't be convinced, no matter what. And the illogical connection is that moral objectivism somehow magically has the answer. — S

Absolutely.

In other cases, people are persuaded to change their mind. And again, this has nothing to do with moral subjectivism or moral objectivism. — S

To be honest I think subjectivism has the edge here and people are using it despite claiming to oppose it. Look at Tim's argument, or VS's. It's basically saying "I think x is wrong and I'm very clever, wouldn't you like to sound clever like me?"

I can still chose, as many do, to be outside the objective norm, but that is a very different position than I hold a different - but equally valid subjective view. — Rank Amateur

Yes to the first part (by my particular view of moral subjectivism), but in the second, you're adding terms to the argument that no one (to my knowledge) has added. No one said the two subjective moral stances were equally valid. Go back over what @S or @Terrapin Station said about judgement. In the sense you're using the term 'valid', it is not the claim that subjectivists are making

No one said the two subjective moral stances were equally valid. — Isaac

that is my position that i have been arguing - not theirs.

How can one subjective moral view be better than any other subjective moral view - if the basis for both is purely the subjective view of the person who holds it? Any judgment on either view that does not employ some degree of objective morality as a standard to measure against is just one more subjective view.

If all moral views are subjective, by definition none can be objectively better than any other.

Isaac - I can help you with the right answer - here it is:

Rank - Me and a few million other relative morality believers all seem to hold 2 of the same subjective beliefs - the first one is we think Hitler is a monster, and the second one is we subjectively believe we are going to hang anyone who doesn't subjectively think he is a monster too.

Now I am convinced.

Wish there was kind of name we could use for such a widely and commonly held belief. — Rank Amateur

There is a name for that. It's called a popular belief, and it does nothing to support moral objectivism. Boy, it turns out you were easy to convince. You would've been convinced that slavery was a good thing back in the day.

If all moral views are subjective, by definition none can be objectively better than any other. — Rank Amateur

Yes--that's exactly right.

The thing is that "objectively better" is a category error in the first place.

So competing views are not better or worse than each other objectively--but the objective realm is the entirely wrong place for doing that sort of work. It's akin to noting that a dog has no category number as a hurricane. Dogs aren't the right sort of thing for that--they're not hurricanes, so it's not going to make sense to talk about a dog having a hurricane category number.

But that doesn't at all imply a problem with making judgments about competing moral stances. Judgments, by their very nature, are things that occur in the subjective realm, not the objective realm. Judgments are indeed just one more subjective view--they can never be anything other than that. The trick is to recognize and deal with them as what they are.

The trivial point is that some people won't be convinced, no matter what. And the illogical connection is that moral objectivism somehow magically has the answer.
— S

Absolutely. — Isaac

Predictable, ain't he?

To be honest I think subjectivism has the edge here and people are using it despite claiming to oppose it. Look at Tim's argument, or VS's. It's basically saying "I think x is wrong and I'm very clever, wouldn't you like to sound clever like me?" — Isaac

Oh yes. And Tim has used all the tricks in the book! They might've worked on me if I hadn't taken the time to learn about logical fallacies and develop my skill in being able to identify them.

Argument 1
Moral relativism: boo! Moral objectivism: yay!

Argument 2
It's obvious.

Therefore, moral objectivism.

That was Tim's tactic in a nutshell. Vagabond Spectre's was more like: "I agree with everything you say, but brushing your teeth is handy, therefore objective morality".

We've got some stiff competition on our hands.

the objective realm is the entirely wrong place for doing that sort of work. — Terrapin Station

can you give just one example of anything that is subjectively better than anything else, in any sense of the word better, that is not just an opinion/view.

Judgments, by their very nature, are things that occur in the subjective realm, not the objective realm. — Terrapin Station

In your view - that in no way is any kind of a truth statement

It didn't muddy the waters for me. You could say a similar thing about my analogy with meaning and an orange, but that would be to massively miss the point. In fact, this actually happened. It is what Banno did. He thought that I was suggesting that meaning is a thing like an orange. "Darling, grab me an orange from the fruit bowl. And whilst you're at it, could you pick me up a meaning? It's in the cupboard on the left". :lol: — S

It muddies the waters because it is a false, or at least weak, analogy. We don't tend to care much what others like to eat, provided it doesn't smell too bad. When it comes to morals almost everyone agrees about the basic principles, and those principles are based on what makes for a harmonious community.

Kant was basically right: there would be a contradiction in saying that you want to live harmoniously with others, but that you think it is OK to lie, cheat. steal, exploit, rape and murder. If you are honest and say that you don't really care about living harmoniously with others, but that it suits you to remain in society because you don't like being alone, you wouldn't be able to survive alone, you need others to exploit and torture lest you be bored, and so on; then there would be no contradiction. But would such a person be moral, immoral or amoral?

(What I don't like about Kant's CI is the notion of duty).

That is my position that I have been arguing - not theirs. — Rank Amateur

You've been arguing it? Are you sure about that?

How can one subjective moral view be better than any other subjective moral view - if the basis for both is purely the subjective view of the person who holds it? Any judgment on either view that does not employ some degree of objective morality as a standard to measure against is just one more subjective view. — Rank Amateur

So an argument from incredulity. You don't see how it is possible, so it's not possible. We've all tried to explain it to you. You can lead a horse to water...

If all moral views are subjective, by definition none can be objectively better than any other. — Rank Amateur

Moral subjectivists don't claim or accept that, so it doesn't work as a criticism at all. That's like saying to a solipsist that the existence of other people means that they can't be the only one who exists. It's kind of silly when you think about it.

Do you also object to the notion of moral law?

You've been arguing it? Are you sure about that? — S

yes, that is my entire point - there is no meaningful value judgement that can be made about competing moral views if you hold to subjectivity - they can only be different - there is no meaningful subjectively better or worse.

So an argument from incredulity. You don't see how it is possible, so it's not possible. — S

then please show me how it is possible, before you invoke the fallacy - show it applies please.

Moral subjectivists don't claim or accept that, so it doesn't work as a criticism at all. — S

and they are welcome to their view, but it has no real meaning to anyone else -

Depends on what you mean by "moral law", Mww...