Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hmm.  To put it in a similar manner I would say it is as follows first I argued:
1.  A person acts according to ethical utility, an argument to numbers, which leads to immoral actions.
2.  A person makes an appeal to authority in order to override the appeal to numbers to engage in immoral actions.
3.  The authority appealed to will not be supported by direct explicit empirical proof and thus may be considered fictional.
4.  Thus, one must appeal to a fictional entity (their person, conscience, schema, or deity) in order to have an authority to override utility.

Not so much an argument as it is a long winded claim, though, eh?  You're going to have trouble demonstrating the truth value of -anything- you've said there.  But GL to you with that, truly.

Then I argued:
1.  An appeal to authority, where the authority is subjective results in a morality based on whims.

so what?

2.  An appeal to authority, where the authority is objective (in actuality or proxy) results in morality that overrides whims.

So what?

3.  A person engages in the act believed to be subjectively best/correct/right.

That actually sends pretty legit...but so what?

4.  Under subjective determination all acts are right; under objective determination all acts are not right.

Aw, too bad, that's not argued, it's misapprehended.  Under subjective determinations all acts are...wait for it....morally subjective.  Not right.  You've already been corrected.....but....so...what?

[Anima]

3.  A person engages in the act believed to be subjectively best/correct/right.

That actually sends pretty legit...but so what?

4.  Under subjective determination all acts are right; under objective determination all acts are not right.

Aw, too bad, that's not so much argued as it is misapprehended.  Under subjective determinations all acts are...wait for it....morally subjective.  Not right.  You've already been corrected.  

Aw, wait for it:

If 3 then 4.
3. A person engages in the act believed to be subjectively best/correct/right.
4. Under subjective determination all acts are right; under objective determination all acts are not right.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unfortunately, you are as wrong this time...as you have been in all previous iterations of the same claim - and for the same reason in each and every case.  You can either adjust your claim to the position you wish to ascribe it to..or pitch straw.  The choice is yours.

[Anima]

Unfortunately, you are as wrong this time...as you have been in all previous iterations of the same claim - and for the same reason in each and every case.  You can either adjust your claim to the position you wish to ascribe it to..or pitch straw.  The choice is yours.

Pardon. Perhaps you are focusing on a typo. Let me correct:

3. A person engages in the act believed to be subjectively best/correct/right.
4. Under subjective determination all acts engaged in are right; under objective determination all acts engaged in are not right.

[The Grand Nudger]

Still wrong, still for the same reason.  You know why, and you also know that you can't modify your statement and still get the conclusion you're angling for (which is, itself, equally useless but holds some fascination -for you-).  Sell it elsewhere?

[Anima]

Unfortunately, you are as wrong this time...as you have been in all previous iterations of the same claim - and for the same reason in each and every case.  You can either adjust your claim to the position you wish to ascribe it to..or pitch straw.  The choice is yours.

Pardon.  Perhaps you are focusing on a typo.  Let me correct:

3.  A person engages in the act believed to be subjectively best/correct/right.
4.  Under subjective determination all acts engaged in are right; under objective determination all acts engaged in are not right.

Still wrong, still for the same reason.  You know why, and you also know that you can't modify your statement and still get the conclusion you're angling for (which is, itself, equally useless but holds some fascination -for you-).  Sell it elsewhere?

I am afraid you are going to need to tell me why. If a person engages in acts they subjectively believe to be best/correct/right and the determination of the quality of the act is based on the Subject at the time of action; then it directly follows that any action the Subject engages in is best/correct/right.

Otherwise we must say the Subject engages in actions they subjectively believe to not be best/correct/right.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am afraid you are going to need to tell me why. 

I already have.

If a person engages in acts they subjectively believe to be best/correct/right and the determination of the quality of the act is based on the Subject at the time of action; then it directly follows that any action the Subject engages in is best/correct/right.

-all that follows is that the subject -believes- it to be the correct action.  That different actors would pick different actions as those "best actions" is the very crux of subjective moral statements.  That some actors would consider a portion of the "best" actions of another set immoral is likewise the very crux of subjective moral statements.  Subjective morality does not claim that all moral actions are right.  It claims that morality is subjective. Period. You can plead for your impositions all you like and I won't grant them. They mean nothing to me and everything to you. This line of conversation is transparent and tiresome. Do..you...wish..to pitch straw? If you do, that's fine..because granting you all of this ridiculous shit.......you still haven't begun to argue for the position which you claimed to have an argument -for-.

If people don't appeal to a fictitious entity they only have two other poorly formed choices of your own design.

So what...really? Sounds to me like you just gave two examples that -completely- discredit your position. Had you let me argue the fairies side I would -at least- have avoided offering definitive refutation of it, as you've done. I guess people have at least two options -other- than your appeal to myth......there goes necessity, there goes your argument. Good day to you sir.

Otherwise we must say the Subject engages in actions they subjectively believe to not be best/correct/right.

You have a fixation with telling people what they must do which I find entirely unsurprising.

[bennyboy]

I am afraid you are going to need to tell me why.  If a person engages in acts they subjectively believe to be best/correct/right and the determination of the quality of the act is based on the Subject at the time of action; then it directly follows that any action the Subject engages in is best/correct/right.

Otherwise we must say the Subject engages in actions they subjectively believe to not be best/correct/right.

Do you think a guy cheating on his wife believes it is the "right" thing to do? Or a heroin addict hitting a needle after three years clean?

No, I disagree with your thesis. I think people are perfectly capable of doing things that they consider wrong. That's because morality depends on ideas or a world view, and emotional and hormonal motivators can override them.

[Anima]

-all that follows is that the subject -believes- it to be the correct action.  That different actors would pick different actions as those "best actions" is the very crux of subjective moral statements.  

So then you would be saying the actors belief of the action being best/correct/right does not correspond to the determination of the morality of the action. To which I respond that if this is the case you are no longer talking about a subjective morality and would be compelled to ask what is the determinate of the morality of the action?

That some actors would consider a portion of the "best" actions of another set immoral is likewise the very crux of subjective moral statements. Subjective morality does not claim that all moral actions are right. It claims that morality is subjective. Period.

I think it is funny when you are inclined to throw out nominal definitions alone. Subjective morality means morality is subjective. Period. Does this definition have any implications? Or is it merely a tautology? If it is merely a tautology than you waste your time even saying it.

If it has implication than what might they be? Might we say an implication of morality being subjective is not simply that it is performed by Subjects, but that that the quality of the act is determined subjectively at the time of action by the subjective actor? Then may we say the actor may engage in any number of actions? As a generality may it follow the various actions engaged in by the subjective actor shall be of a moral quality as determined by the subject at time of action?

If the aforementioned is acceptable and we say the Subject engages in actions they believe to be best/correct/right than it follows that whatever actions the Subject engages in are to be morally determined as best/correct/right overall in accordance with the Subject's determination at the time of action. In such manner even known immoral actions are determined as moral.

If people don't appeal to a fictitious entity they only have two other poorly formed choices of your own design.

If they do not appeal to a fictitious entity (as they need to appeal to a fictitious entity for subjective morality as well) they only have one poorly formed choice which would be ethical utility. However, ethical utility allows for any number of immoral actions and may be said to not suffice as a schema of morality anymore than subjective morality. So it would appear the day is not over yet.

You have a fixation with telling people what they must do which I find entirely unsurprising.

Logic has that effect. Or if you like, "Morality is compulsion, but it is only internal compulsion." - Kant.

---

Do you think a guy cheating on his wife believes it is the "right" thing to do?  Or a heroin addict hitting a needle after three years clean?

No, I disagree with your thesis.  I think people are perfectly capable of doing things that they consider wrong.  That's because morality depends on ideas or a world view, and emotional and hormonal motivators can override them.

Now this I like!! So when we say the emotional and hormonal motivators override the morality what are we saying? If we were to ask one subject to such override about the morality of their action at that moment do you think they will say it is the wrong thing to do?

Normally they are likely to say that. But if we hold morality of the act is to be determined by the subject at the time of action, their normal view does not matter. Rather their view under emotional and hormonal override is the determinate of the morality of their conduct. So do they think that course of action is best/correct/right at that instance? Likely the answer is yes.

[The Grand Nudger]

So then you would be saying the actors belief of the action being best/correct/right does not correspond to the determination of the morality of the action. To which I respond that if this is the case you are no longer talking about a subjective morality and would be compelled to ask what is the determinate of the morality of the action?

No, that would be what -you- are saying.  Pitch more straw, it does't actually matter, as I've already explained.  

I think it is funny when you are inclined to throughout nominal definitions alone. Subjective morality means morality is subjective. Period. Does this definition have any implications? Or is it merely a tautology? If it is merely a tautology than you waste your time even saying it.

I think you waste your time pitching straw that will not rescue your claim.  We both waste time, for whatever reason.

If it has implication than what might they be? Might we say an implication of morality being subjective is not simply that it is performed by Subjects, but that that the quality of the act is determined subjectively at the time of action by the subjective actor? Then may we say the actor may engage in any number of actions? As a generality may it follow the various actions engaged in by the subjective actor shall be of a moral quality as determined by the subject at time of action?

You can say any number of those things and apply them as your own positions, you cannot take the liberty of imposing them upon others.  If you are arguing, it is only with yourself at this point. 

If the aforementioned is acceptable and we say the Subject engages in actions they believe to be best/correct/right than it follows that whatever actions the Subject engages in are to be morally determined as best/correct/right overall in accordance with the Subject's determination at the time of action. In such manner even known immoral actions are determined as moral.

I'm not going to humor you any further.  Come to the table or stop pretending to be interested.

If they do not appeal to a fictitious entity (as they need to appeal to a fictitious entity for subjective morality as well)

Reasserting that which you claim to be arguing does not actually turn the assertion into argumentation.  

 they only have one poorly formed choice which would be ethical utility. 

Can;t own your own statements from one post to the next?  What a fraud. 

However, ethical utility allows for any number of immoral actions and may be said to not suffice as a schema of morality anymore than subjective morality. So it would appear the day is not over yet.

More transparent objections.  It's too late, you scuttled your own bullshit and we'll get no farther if you can't own your own positions - and you refuse to allow others theirs.  You don;t actually need -any of us- to have this conversation with yourself Anima......Perhaps you think that the appeal to fiction is -better- than those other options you presented...that's a conversation we could have, but your original position is done, and you killed it.  I don't know why you continue to argue this with me, as I already given you every ludicrous claim for the sake of conversation. First there were two alternatives, then there's only one...I'm sure it won't be long until you call yourself a liar again by claiming that there are -no- other options...oh, oops...you already did.