Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Back up to two again, fine, fraud....as before, you've given two alternatives that demonstrate that there is no necessity in your appeal to a fictitious character.  You think that the outcomes are not optimal, you think that the slope is slippery (it's a favorite of yours I can tell)...but that doesn't matter, because that wasn't the point of contention, the point which you demonstrated to be false in your attempt to argue it.  That there was some -need- to appeal to a fictitious character, there isn't...and you've explained why so well yourself I see no reason to elaborate upon the refutation you offered of your own "argument".  I'm satisfied...you've convinced me.

Let the record show that Rythm has been convinced of our argument that ethical utility shall lead to numerous immoral acts and that in order to engage in moral actions one will have to override ethical utility by means of an appeal to a fictitious authority. (As we have made no argument to the contrary). Thank you for your satisfaction.

---

Sorry for belaboring this point. What do you mean by hijacking a person's decision making process? It appears you are saying the higher moral ideas are not being accessed or acted upon at that time. Which I am more than willing to accept. Now would we say such for every immoral action? That every immoral action is simply a moment of higher moral ideas being inaccessible to our person?
 If so I think we are still in the same boat. As we would say the person's actions are always morally acceptable since they are either acting rightly or they are acting in a diminished capacity and not to be judged as acting wrongly. Thus, every action is moral or amoral and no action is immoral.

No, it's not like the person is unconscious.  If I'm having sex with a woman who's not my wife, and my sexual desire supercedes my world view as the main behavioral motivator, I'm still aware that what I'm doing is wrong.  If I go through with it, could I have acted otherwise?  Could my love, if deep enough, have "fought back," and brought my moral systems back on line in time to prevent the consummation of the immoral act?  Maybe, maybe not.  But this is irrelevant to whether the act is right or not.  It's subjectively wrong if my world view hold that kind of act as wrong, without regard to how things play out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are arguing along the same lines as Nestor. Basically you are arguing the subjective adoption of a schema (world view) at some time in the past. You are then having this world view serve as the determinate of the moral quality of acts performed by the Subject. Now should your whims override your world view and you engage in an act not in keeping with the world view you would say that act is immoral.

As stated to Nestor so restated. In this scenario your "world view" is acting as an objective proxy determinate of morality. Upon adoption of the schema you are no longer operating according to subjective morality, as the moral quality of the action is not being determined by the Subject at the time of action, but by the fictitious "world view".