Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

We are talking about the semantics of self, now, and throwing in an implied BOP to boot.

Ha ha!! So you want me to just accept the existence of your imaginary friend without evidence and then to talk about the qualities of said imaginary friend?

You keep talking about the self referring to this implicitly external world view, as though it's a library that must be accessed and obeyed.  I contend that the world view is part of the self-- the will, ego, etc. are all intrinsically linked in a person.

Actually I gave explanation in both cases. Throughout we have been arguing about the subject of morality. In particular the determinate of morality. Now you are saying the determinate is a world view a person has. Now I am saying if the world view is the determinate is that world view subject to the person or is the person subject to the world view?

If you are saying the world view is subject to our person than you are wasting time talking about a world view that does nothing save convolute the conversation. Since the world view may change as our person so desires the determinate of the quality of our conduct is not this fictitious world view, but rather our fictitious person; and more to the points the whims of the fictitious person, which may easily be shown as being in agreement with our conduct; whatever it may be. As I said earlier a liar will modify their world view by arguing simply that everyone lies, a cheater that everyone cheats, a thief that everyone steals, and so on. Thus they will hold the act of lying, cheating, and stealing has the consensus you stipulate below.

If your are saying our person is subject to the world view than you are saying the world view serves as an objective proxy and may not be changed by our person. Since the world view may not be changed as our person so desires the determinate of the quality of our conduct may be this world view. A view that may not be changed by our person or our whims and will inherently establish consensus by all who abide by it. But, to argue this way would lead readily to an argument of religion, which is why I suspect your are attempting the former argument.

To say that all conduct is moral is too simple.  All conduct may be perceived as moral by the agent conducting it, based on his/her world view: even a murderer or a rapist may see good ends and justified means in what he does, and see his act as one of justice.

But to apply the word "moral" to a behavior is like to apply the word "beauty" to a physical object.  No object is intrinsically beautiful, and yet most people can come to the consensus that some things, like sunsets, are beautiful.

The same goes for morality.  We each have our moral ideas, based on our world views.  The majority of world views overlap greatly, and are objects of consensus.  Some ideas are not.  We can loosely say that rape is immoral, based on that consensus, and that drinking milk is not, while knowing that a percentage of the population will fall outside that consensus.

Ha ha!! You really want to go with that argument? Very well. If conduct is perceived as moral by the actor in terms of their world view (which I take to mean a world view subject to our person) we are right back in the scenario of subjective morality where every action is moral and by which we act immorally to denigrate or punish such conduct. Such a definition of morality is untenable. Now if you perfer to argue that all actions are amoral than so be it; but be aware under such an argument the only constraint upon conduct becomes physical limitation. Thus one may not say murder, rape, torture, or any other number of acts are immoral since conduct is not moral or immoral.

Now It may easily be argued that all conduct has a moral aspect just as all objects have an aspect of beauty. Kant does so very well in the critique of judgments regarding moral, amoral, and immoral as well as the ugly, beautiful, and sublime. In truth we are not arguing that acts have a moral aspect or object a beauty aspect. Rather we are arguing the means by which that morality or that beauty may be determined. As stated many posts ago one is not justified in saying the determinate of morality or beauty is subjective and then immediately saying the subjectivity of the Subjects is of such a quality as to effectively be the same and result in overlap and consensus. (see posts to Nestor about Subject A =A1=A2=A3). In order to make an argument to consensus the object of subjective observation (be it physical or a world view) must be independent of our person (that is to say not changed by our perception of it) and thus would constitute an objective reality (in accordance with realism) leading to moral realism.

Who says meat can't have a world view?

As i understand it if there is no evidence of it than it does not exist. Otherwise to paraphrase what you wrote:

"Who says God can't exist?"

The general argument is that God does not exist because there is not sufficient "evidence". To which application of the same general argument (you are not special pleading are you?) states our person does not exist nor does our world view exist for want of sufficient evidence.