Was Hitler objectively bad?

[Edwardo Piet]

A prescription is dependent on IF and OUGHT.

??? What the fuck's the difference between prescribing and saying something 'ought' to be? At least in one's opinion?

Yes a prescription is dependent on an if, and so is an ought. But what's the fucking difference between the two?

IF I wish that P I OUGHT to do X. IF I wish that there exists a state of affairs in which more and stronger desires are fulfilled than thwarted then I ought to have the desires than tend to promote more and stronger desires than they thwart.

Who the fuck says you ought to simply because desirism says so? Until desirism can validate itself people can just tell it to go fuck itself.

This is trivially true

Desirism has a valid (and fucking trivially so!) coherence. Valid in itself only though, and fucking trival it indeed is - because it can't show itself to be right. I've been through this fucking multiple times.

the argument is whether or not this goal to achieve said state of affairs should be called morality.

Morality already has a definition! What is moral is what 'ought to be'. If you're redefining morality to mean 'moral within the realm of desirism' then you're still not getting and fucking objectively morality! You're merely redefining 'morality' to suit your precious fucking desirism.

My fucking point is that desirism can't show what's objectively moral really, it can't show what 'ought to be' objectively, it can only show what ought to be within its own logic. How can any fucking moral system say that it is objectively right? It can't! And redefining morality completely is just fucking cheating and not actually getting to objective morality.

This is the real argument here and I argue that it should, for reasons you have already seemed to agree with, that being it's consistent with moral language, is the only reason for action that exists and morality is necessarily a standard by which we judge action.

You can't objectively show that what's moral is what desirism says is moral O - fucking - K? You can't magically transcend the meta-ethical issue by redefining morality to mean what you want it to mean... morality already has a definition and you can't prove any moral theory to objectively be better than any other.

Also, our moral intuitions also seem to have this relationship in mind subconsciously,

It's only by our moral intuitions that we can fucking say 'X is right' or "Y is wrong" at all, all prescribing is entirely subjective. Something beging objectively moral within a certain moral framework doesn't prove, and is no closer to proving, that X or Y is objectively moral or immoral whatsoever. Prescriptive within a certain moral framework is merely descriptive in the world we actually fucking live in.

that being the vast majority of moral Nihilists and subjectivists who say that morality is whatever the opinion of a relevant person or persons are (or that moral statements are colloquialisms) is in fact representative of the relationship between desires and a state of affairs.

That proves nothing. Morality is a matter of subjective and relative opinion and there is no evidence of any objective morality outside of any entirely unproven moral framework that can't be objectively fucking substantiated is exactly where we still stand on the very valid meta-ethical issue. You can't say that any moral framework is objective because it can't use it's own logic to validate itself as being any 'better' then any other moral system.... you have to start with meta-ethics IF you actually want a fucking objective morality. And it seems impossible to me, indeed.

Science is an entirely descriptive issue. We wouldn't fucking say that we could objectively evice that scientists SHOULD research X, SHOULD experiment on Y. That would be prescribing and would be subjective and relative.

Science is completely fucking different to moral frameworks because moral frameworks are supposed to be prescriptive!! They can't objectively validate themseleves anymore than science can objectively say it should or shouldn't treat people like guinea pigs (And no, it can't.... that's a moral issue and a matter of opinion).

Morality is entirely a matter of opinion because what we ought to do is entirely a matter of opinion. Because outside of any moral framework what ought to be obviously can't be proven. And moral frameworks themselves can't be proven and the logic within them is fucking tautological to their owns reasoning (at best that is - at best it is merely coherent! Not objective in the real world).

Desirism it's self is true in that it is objectively true or false that certain desires tend to promote more and other desires than they thwart and vice verse,

So what that's descriptive and not actually a matter of moralitiy.

and since desires are the only reasons for action that exist all action that we take is contingent upon the relationship between our desires and the state of affairs,

Still descriptive

thus if you want a world in which more of us are free to act as we chose without being hindered you are essentially a Desire Utilitarian regardless of whether or not you want to label it 'Morality'.

If you want a world that supports desirism them you will value it and say desirism ought to be subscribed to, yes. That's still descriptive!!! "People who desire desirism ought to support it within its own logic".... you have not bridged any 'Is' 'ought' gap.

So in that sense there are no opinions that 'go against' desirism

Desirism is merely being descriptive though so fuck it. It's prescirptive within itself but then that means you should only listen to it if you already agree with it!

you can chose to call something else morality but that has no impact on the truth of desirism in determining what desires tend to promote more and stronger desires than they thwart.

Desirism is entirely descriptive when it is correct. When it gets prescriptive and says anyone ought to desire X or ought not to desire Y it is completely fucking unsupported!

I'm tired of repeating myself right now. Especially when I have trouble fucking explaining myself it seems :S