What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

-another way to express the above..is that I truly believe you can win this argument, just not in the manner that you've initially attempted to do so.  The sooner you abandon those trivialities the sooner you arrive at something that I can't answer, rationally...even though I'll still be able to answer it sensibly.

---

-and yet another way to express the above.  Ultimately, you need to decide whether your primary affinity in objection is to subjectivism, or that some realists moral schema x -may be wrong-.

Subjective things cannot -be- wrong.  Wrong or false is not a property of subjectivism. Subjectivist propositions just flat out -are- brute facts..of the subject. They cannot even be in error, lol. If we demur to subjectivist objections we simply lose any ability to criticize the given standard as the wrong standard, or a standard built on sand. All standards are equally right, and all are equally valid and robust and rock fucking solid.

Ethical error theory rejects ethical subjectivism, fundamentally and by definition.  Because of this, I can't give you a satisfying answer to two contradictory an disparate propositions, simultaneously..as a realist. Error theory asserts that there -is- a right answer, but we have it wrong.....,. subjectivist theory asserts that all answers are the right answer for the subject in question, there is no wrong answer. Error theorists and realists are both talking out of their asses.

[Angrboda]

-another way to express the above..is that I truly believe you can win this argument, just not in the manner that you've initially attempted to do so.  The sooner you abandon those trivialities the sooner you arrive at something that I can't answer, rationally...even though I'll still be able to answer it sensibly.

---

-and yet another way to express the above.  Ultimately, you need to decide whether your primary affinity in objection is to subjectivism, or that some realists moral schema x -may be wrong-.

Subjective things cannot -be- wrong.  Wrong or false is not a property of subjectivism.  Subjectivist propositions just flat out -are- brute facts..of the subject.  They cannot even be in error, lol.  If we demur to subjectivist objections we simply lose any ability to criticize the given standard as the wrong standard, or a standard built on sand.  All standards are equally right, and all are equally valid and robust and rock fucking solid.

Ethical error theory rejects ethical subjectivism, fundamentally and by definition.  Because of this, I can't give you a satisfying answer to two contradictory an disparate propositions, simultaneously..as a realist.  Error theory asserts that there -is- a right answer, but we have it wrong.....,. subjectivist theory asserts that all answers are the right answer for the subject in question, there is no wrong answer.  Error theorists and realists are both talking out of their asses.

The only "manner" in which I have approached this argument is in showing that your arguments haven't established your conclusions. Everything else that you think I am doing is just a straw man that exists only in your imagination. If you feel I cannot win by this strategy then I think you have woefully failed to accurately assess my strategy. How have you sensibly replied to my showing that you haven't adequately supported your conclusion? By simply mindlessly repeating failed objections, creating straw men which you gleefully knock down, and claiming victories that you have not earned. There is nothing "sensible" in any of that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you really wish to maintain an insistence that harm cannot be objectively quantified?  Unless you wish to maintain that insistence..then..no, you haven't shown that my argument, that harm can be objective, has failed to establish my conclusion.  That conclusion being..that harm can be objective.  That, because you can meausure the depth of a wound and in doing so establish that this wound is not a mind dependent fact...that I have been wounded, that I am harmed....that it is objective as moral theorists discuss objectivity and mind indepedence. That this is one of the things we refer to when we say "x has harmed y" - as webster so conveniently laid out.

Simple. Object to -that-.........or concede and we can move forward to other things which you may object to. Moral objectivity may be wrong, in the end..but if it is, it isn't for this reason...because the presence of some wound or some damage or some harm is, by any sensible definition of objective......objective.

Or, you know, paint yourself into a corner of absurdity, your call. : shrugs :

(that is -all- that moral theorists are referring to with objectivity...fin, caput, the end, done and done, qed...follow?)

[Angrboda]

Do you really wish to maintain an insistence that harm cannot be objectively quantified?  Unless you wish to maintain that insistence..then..no, you haven't shown that my argument, that harm can be objective, has failed to establish my conclusion.  That conclusion being..that harm is objective.  That, because you can meausre the depth of a wound an establish that this wound is not a mind dependent fact...it is objective as moral theorists discuss objectivity.

Simple.

It's not a question of quantification, so don't go there. You haven't shown that harm can be objective in a manner which is consistent with your moral theory. Any other manner is simply irrelevant. Until and unless you can show that harm has an objective definition that is consistent with your assertion that harm is bad, then my counter-argument that you haven't established your conclusions succeeds. If harm could be objectively defined, I suppose that might form the basis of a moral theory, but since you haven't even gotten that far, that would remain a bridge yet to be crossed. Again, I don't know what moral theorists discuss, but I know what you have discussed, and that is that harm is morally bad and that this assertion is objectively true. I'm not interested in what you imagine moral theorists to have in mind because, among other things, you've already shown that you have quite an imagination. If you are defending a moral realist theory that you have in mind but have not asserted and that we have not discussed, then you are simply being silly. If you are referencing arguments you haven't made and discussions that you haven't had, and concluding that in those arguments and discussions you are right, then you might as well go back to your room and jerk off because you will be accomplishing more there than you are here. I have no interest or need to make any points about things you haven't brought forward here, and it would be silly for me to do so. It is however rather silly for you to believe and assert that you are right regarding some unvoiced moral realism when you can't even establish the things that you have given voice to here.

[The Grand Nudger]

You may have valid objections, they simply aren't at the place or in the position that you think they are...if, ofc, you're engaging with the position of moral realism to begin with.

/

---

If harm -can be- objective...then harm -can be- an objective metric.  QED. Done, thus ends all avenue of valid subjectivist objection. Bring on the error theory, ffs!

[Angrboda]

Well, maybe, but as noted, that issue lies on the horizon and not in the here and now. You haven't established that harm exists objectively according to the definitions you have asserted, so your QED is rather premature.

And once again you fail to engage. I have repeatedly pointed out that your conception of my argument as subjectivist is just a straw man, so, feel free to create an army of such straw men, as long as you are doing so and haven't met my actual argument, you fail.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've already laid out how and in what ways harm is objective.  That qualifies for objectivity, or mind independence, as moral theorists are discussing it.  So that's just..frankly, that.

If it still doesn't qualify to you, well..okay, but you're not talking about the same thing that moral theorists are..so..so what? Maybe ethical objectivity is, in some other sense, subjective..maybe everything we think is....it simply doesn't matter if this is true. This is a hard wall for subjectivity and subjectivist objections. They can go no further, and on the grounds of ethical objectivity, harm succeeds as objective.

[Angrboda]

I've already laid out how and in what ways harm is objective.  That qualifies for objectivity, or mind independence, as moral theorists are discussing it.  So that's just..frankly, that.

No, you haven't, at least not consistent with the moral theorist in question, namely you. If you want to assert some other theory of morals other than that harm is objectively bad, then bring it. So far that's the only thing you've brought and I have shown that it is not objectively defined, or more properly, that you haven't succeeded in objectively defining it as this particular moral theorist, you, have talked about it. I cannot address arguments or theories you haven't introduced. I have addressed the moral theory you introduced and shown it to be wanting.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, Jorm, I have..in plain point of fact, showed you how harm can be mind independent in the manner discussed by moral theorists.  That this isn't mind independent enough, for you..is a you problem. A problem of satisfaction.

Go, read, and bother me again when you have the slightest clue wtf you're talking about.

[Angrboda]

Same to you, dude. You're simply delusional. I had developed some interest when you suggested intuitionism had something to do with it, but that apparently was just a joke on your part. You haven't shown that it is mind independent in the way that you as a moral realist talks about it. That you think that how other moral theorists talk about it is objective when the way you talk about it isn't is just laughable.

Get back to me when you manage to extract your head from your ass.