Not that I agree with your assessment of what most moral philosophers think with regards to your premise anyway...

I think most moral philosophers would agree that if something is morally valuable, its moral value is not constitutively determined by our valuings. — Bartricks
...may well be true, but that's a weaker position that the one you're using in your argument.

1. For something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued. — Bartricks
Most moral philosophers would disagree with this, for example. Especially those who are moral realists. Thus making the moral value you talk about as being categorical distinct from the moral value that most philosophers talk about as being categorical (where they talk that way). Kant, for example. the archetype of categorical morality, saw a moral value as a rule specifically that one did not value anyway. Otherwise, for him, it would not be moral. So your starting premise, the one on which you hinge your conclusion that categorical moral values must be valued by someone, is not one which most philosophers agree with. A standard which you've previously used to justify their prima facae acceptability. — Isaac

I don't know why you feel the need to tell me about my own argument. But it is 'true' (not 'may well be true' - is true) that most moral philosophers will accept that moral values are not constitutively determined by our valuings.

As for my premise that for something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued - yes, I accept that they are going to be sceptical about that, but not because it is not plausible in itself, but because accepting it would then entail a subjectivist position in ethics - a position they think is incompatible with the previous premise!

Now, it is really not my fault if most contemporary moral philosophers don't realize that they're consistent with one another, is it?

My argument demonstrates their consistency.

What follows logically from the fact that to be morally valuable involves being valued, and the fact that moral value is not constitutively determined by any of our valuings, is that moral value involves being valued by someone who is not any one of us.

See? I draw that conclusion. Why? Because I ruthlessly follow reason. Unlike you lot I don't decide in advance what's true and then only listen to reason when I think she's endorsing my pre-existing views.

Why do most contemporary moral philosophers not draw that conclusion, though?

The Euthyphro, that's why. That is, their reason (and mine too) represents moral values to be necessary not contingent. And they think that's incompatible with moral values being the values of any subject whatever. As do I. And they conclude that therefore moral values are not the values of any subject whatever. But I do not draw that conclusion.

You're just out of your intellectual depth, that's all. Swim back up the shallow end with the toddlers and you'll be fine. And you're confusing 'listening to' and 'agreeing with' - a classic mistake of the arrogant. I listen to everything, but I don't agree with much because most of it doesn't make any sense or is just obviously false. Anyway, you gave me some charming advice earlier in this thread - may I offer it back to you?

No, she is sentient, but she doesn't need to be sapient. They are similar looking words, but they don't mean the same thing - that's not how language works.

According to your view - which you clearly don't understand - if Joe values (values - VALUES - values, values. V. A.L.U.E.S) raping Jane, then it will necessarily be good for Joe to rape Jane. — Bartricks

(1) You're ignoring the question I'm asking you: If Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then is it not the case that, to Joe, it's morally permissible to rape Jane?

(2) My view is that if Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then necessarily, to Joe, it is morally permissible to rape Jane.

(3) It is not my view that if Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then something follows outside of the scope of what Joe thinks.

One of the biggie moral tenets is: love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Would Reason care to comment?

no, and you're changing the topic. I can't discuss this with you anymore because you're just not listening.

Analogy: me: apples are not oranges

You: bananas are not yellow bent things

Me: I didn't mention bananas. What you've said is false, but more importantly completely irrelevant.

You: just answer the question - bananas are not yellow bent things, yes!?

Address the actual premise, not quite different ones. Actually, don't bother, I am going to wait for someone who can read and who understands basic logic to come along.

Reason says no. Fondling yourself is fine, fondling your neighbour is probably not.

Reason says don't get your ethics off the back of a matchbox.

no, — Bartricks

So if Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then to Joe it's not morally permissible to rape Jane? That's what you're claiming?

So you're not a Christian. Do you just discover right and wrong off the cuff?

I am saying that if Joe is a banana, he is bent and yellow.

Yes, I'm not a Christian. Do you think it is okay to fondle your neighbour if you love fondling yourself? Just asking. Jesus and Bill Cosby - not a huge difference between imo.

Do you just discover right and wrong off the cuff? — frank

No.

No. — Bartricks

Muslim?

No. I'm a Potterite. A follower of Bartricks Potter.

So you follow your own council?

My own counsel tells me to follow reason. Potterites are rationalists.

I am saying that if Joe is a banana, he is bent and yellow. — Bartricks

You realize that if you deny that "if Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then to Joe, it's morally permissible to rape Jane," you're denying an identity, right?

I said he was a grape.

And Christians don't know reason. Muslims dont know reason.

You do.

So given that you don't want to deny an identity, you agree.

It would seem. I mean, you haven't answered my question about fondling your neighbour - did I refute Jesus or not?

If you're a Christian and I just refuted Jesus, I think you've just found yourself a new man to suck up to - welcome to Potterism.

Have you ever met anyone who knew Reason the way you do?

Nope. You?

You alone know right from wrong?

No.

Who else?

When have I said that? You're not very good at making inferences.

So who else?

Er, lots and lots of people. I think most people are pretty good at knowing what's right and what's wrong. I'm nothing special on that front.
Do you think opticians have the best eyesight?