Moral Oughts

[The Grand Nudger]

Caring doesn’t make morality subjective. You care very much, but don’t think that makes your morality subjective.

Huh.

[GrandizerII]

It's not meant to be a 100% deductive argument. The conclusion is a reasonable conclusion, not the conclusion of a logically valid argument.

And A is objectively true, because it would be true regardless of what you may think about it.

See why I don't like the subjective vs. objective question?

Pretty much any subjective taste, opinion, contains some elements of a factual nature. Like my taste in food, is predicated on particular flavor combinations, etc...

The reason your above is subjective, is because C is only true for you, and follows from a subjective component like A, not P, that you just didn't include. 

C wouldn't  follow from P if you didn't care how people reacted to you, or found the risk of getting caught negligible to the point of being non-existent.

Yes, I said as much a page ago that the selection of reason bit is subjective. The argument applies to me, not necessarily to you. But I've given an example argument as to why I ought not to steal someone else's wallet, and it was based on facts, not opinion.

That said, I can apply it to you as well. Even if you won't agree with the imposition.

[Acrobat]

Pretty much any subjective taste, opinion, contains some elements of a factual nature. Like my taste in food, is predicated on particular flavor combinations, etc...

The reason your above is subjective, is because C is only true for you, and follows from a subjective component like A, not P, that you just didn't include. 

C wouldn't  follow from P if you didn't care how people reacted to you, or found the risk of getting caught negligible to the point of being non-existent.

Yes, I said as much a page ago that the selection of reason bit is subjective. The argument applies to me, not necessarily to you. But I've given an example argument as to why I ought not to steal someone else's wallet, and it was based on facts, not opinion.

It’s based on your personal feelings, how getting getting caught by your friends would you feel bad. How much you care for their acceptance and approval.

That said, I can apply it to you as well. Even if you won't agree with the imposition.

Maybe, but I’m not a naturalist, and don’t believe in a purely physical objective/external reality. I believe in an external reality that possess qualities something like an intrinsic beauty. Elements like this that don’t exist purely as extrinsic attributes of our minds.

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn’t matter. You care, right? Bam.. subjective, according to you.

---

Moral naturalists don’t have to be metaphysical naturalists. They can believe in gods and ghosts and spirit energy, and still be moral naturalists.

Most people, including most religious people, are. Anyone who thinks that x is bad.... because it hurts people, is expressing moral naturalism.

[Acrobat]

Doesn’t matter. You care, right? Bam.. subjective, according to you.

No, I don’t always care. If you dropped your wallet and I was short of cash, I might just keep it. The risk are low enough to be negligible that I’ll get caught, and I don’t care enough about you to feel bad about it.

But the one thing I couldn’t deny, is that I ought not have stolen it, and not from any lack of effort of my part, I acknowledge this as a truth, that the idea of denying it would be like denying I have two arms.

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s a lot of noise to avoid your own criteria. You’ve indicated that you deeply care about conforming to your moral schema. If caring makes a schema subjective, then your schema is subjective.

Here’s the thing, it doesn’t. So, you don’t actually have to launch this batshit argument to save your own schema from your own objections.....but, ofc, neither does anyone else. Caring about something doesn’t make that thing subjective.

A fact remains a fact regardless of whether anyone cares about it.

[Acrobat]

That’s a lot of noise to avoid your own criteria. You’ve indicated that you deeply care about conforming to your moral schema. If caring makes a schema subjective, then your schema is subjective.

Here’s the thing, it doesn’t. So, you don’t actually have to launch this batshit argument to save your own schema from your own objections.....but, ofc, neither does anyone else. Caring about something doesn’t make that thing subjective.

A fact remains a fact regardless of whether anyone cares about it.

There are some moral things that I care about, such as being a good dad to my children, a good husband, etc..

The are others that I don’t really care about it all, like the loss of your wallet, as indicated in my example. I don’t deeply care about it at all.

But the lack of caring here doesn’t mean, the eradication of the ought, because unlike you I see “Ought not steal” as a truth. And truth doesn’t care about my feelings.

[The Grand Nudger]

Caring about being a good dad and s husband are examples of subjective morality, then, according to you.

Though I see you backpedaling for yourself while maintaining the idiocy for others.

Doesn’t work like that. Your not even looking to impose any non rule of care makes subjectivity. You’re just babbling about how everyone else’s whatever is subjective and yours is true. Ironically, you don’t seem to realize that even subjective moral statements have a truth value.

You see, just because you don’t care about my wallet, doesn’t mean that my oughts, or grands oughts, aren’t true either. You don’t have to care about a wallet for the things he described to happen.

[Acrobat]

Double post

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s nice, and your still wrong for the same reasons as the last time you posted it...or hey, you’re right, and your morality is subjective on account of how you care.

Those are your choices. That you foolishly created for yourself, by pulling non rules directly out of your own asshole.