Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[bennyboy]

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".

The adoption of the schema is the exact definition of the establishment of a subjective system of mores. What you call an "objective proxy" represents the world as one understands it, and as one would like it to be. This naturally represents the complex ideas upon which thoughtful behavior will be mediated.

If you want to argue that all thought, all minds, all experiences are objective because they are products of an apparently determinist universe, then rock and roll. Otherwise, you are necessarily either special pleading one case of "objective" which exactly matches everyone else's definition of "subjective," or you equivocating on it in establishing a part of the mind of the Subject as a virtual object.

I suspect the latter to be the case. If mental function, including the building and reference to ideas and systems of ideas, are "objects," then to what are they objects? The mind either is an entity unto itself, or it is an object of the soul. The only problem with this is that you just fall right away into philosophical issues of cosmogony and psychogony, and you'll find it impossible to make any headway in this conversation. Nobody is seriously going to entertain the idea of a soul as a solution to the "fiction" of the world view, since it is simpler by an order of magnitude simply to see the world view as an important aspect of the agency of the self.