Normal

Wow, I'm not trying to prove objective morality exists at all, I'm just saying people invoke a system of objective morality every day to argue their stance on moral issues, and that for people who believe morality is developed subjectively (or intersubjectively), this poses a problem for rationally arguing that your position is "better".

Llyricist

You did it again, I feel NO obligation to continue this if you insist on continuing misrepresentation of what I say.

I'll correct this one but if I don't respond again, you'll know why.
More likely they are a SOCIOPATH... Get it???? and they are all over, some functioning just fine as born again whatevers (not necessarily even theistic religion), but others locked up and classified as incouragable or whatever...

On edit: yes alot of people think that what THEY did was justified, but still know in principle that stealing is generally wrong. And that's where it gets complicated, and one of the reason for Judges and Juries to figure out whether and to what digree the person may have been justified.

And if you are talking about every moral issue, then all you have to do is look around and find that nobody has yet figured out a way to classify THEIR ideas as "better" :banghead: At least not in such a way that is convincing to others. In these cases, Might (the government) does indeed make "Right".

Llyricist

I think you will find that people that don't believe there to be such a thing as "Objective" morality, will find plenty of purely practical and/or pragmatic reasons to back up their stance on any moral issue they wish to argue. So where exactly is the problem?

Normal

To my understanding psychopath and sociopath are synonyms, one is just more politically correct then the other. Both entail "amoral, anti-social" behavior.

And you keep avoiding the main issue of how to reason with someone who does not share your moral system.

Which is exactly the problem, but you keep throwing around this notion of a more complete intersubjective system that has authority on moral standards.

My "problem" is that there's plenty of people who will argue against a stance on any moral issue with a different subjective system, with "pragmatic" and "practical" reasons.

Llyricist

I can't help it if you can't differentiate between someone with warped perceptions and someone with no regard for his fellow man, most people Know the difference.

Are you saying that governments DON'T provide the more complete intersubjective system by force of arms?

What planet are you on???

I'm arguing reality here, you are are off on some philosophical trangent that bears no relation to the real world. We are talking right past eachother. I suggest we just drop it.


And you have a problem with practicality and pragmatism as well as reality, not MY problem, goodbye.

Normal

The issue is "amoral", which both are notable for. The real point is that they have developed a different subjective standard for morality.

[/B][/QUOTE]

A "more complete" intersubjective system presupposes the existence of a "complete" intersubjective system, which presupposes there are degrees of completeness among moral systems, which presupposes the existence of an objective moral standard.

No basis in the real world? I don't know about you, but I'd say the basis of my life is based around my moral system, the choices I make and the path I take are based around this system. It is then a bit discouraging when no one can offer a rational basis for it.

So your practicallity and pragmatism are "better" then mine?

Llyricist

No the issue was you misrepresenting what I said, equivocate all you want, but the psychopath is not necessarily amoral, he may sincerely believe that people are attacking him, or that the grocery store is his personal pantry, but ask him about right and wrong, and he may tell you the same intersubjective standards as most other people.

What you seem to be trying to say is that there is no "practical" difference, if so, very interesting.
Non sequiter....does not follow.... In any case it doesn't follow from what I have been saying. I may have made mistake in borrowing your phrase, but what I have been saying is that governments provide the MOST complete intersubjective systems which IS just a qualified version of more.

All I can categorize this as is willfull ignorance. Lots have people have provided rational bases for a moral system.

Who says we disagree on any major moral issue? Are you what I and my society would classify as a SOCIOPATH?

Normal

I was not aware you distinuished a physcopath and a sociopath by one having inproper interpretations of reality. Now that I am more educated on your definitions, I would say we are strictly talking about "sociopaths" in this case.

The whole issue of "completeness" is irrelevant without an objective standard.

Where? As far as I can tell, you believe the moral system is taught to us at a young age, we accept it on blind faith, then grow up to rationalize it as being a "good" system by only looking at the positive effects it has. Of course, everyone will have different interpretations of what "good" is, and what a "positive effect" might entail, so really, it has no rational basis at all.

I never said we would disagree on "every", I said I could find someone to disagree with you on any. Even having one moral issue to argue over brings up the same issues.

Llyricist

Well I did define them that way the first time I brought it up.
Sorry I assumed you read what I said.

No, it is complete as in "all we have","that's all there is, ain't no more", "1.a. having all necessary parts, elements, or steps". You may wish to assign some other definition, but then you would be putting thoughts in my head if you think I mean it that way. And you are just wrong in excluding definition 1.a. by saying it is irrelevent without an objective standard.

Well you missed a few things in what I said, but I'll let that slide. You seem to be confusing rational with some sort of absoluteness. People can and do come to diametrically opposed rational decisions or conclusions all the time, so I want to know just HOW you define rational, because it seems, yet again, to be a very personal definition.

Once again (siiiigh) I said any, meaning any particular one, NOT every.

And Even having one moral issue to argue over proves the point of subjectivity!!! I seriously don't know what you think you are driving at here.

Normal

This just brings up the question of what is necessary and what is not necessary. And what does "all" imply? That there is a complete system containing "all" of these "necessary" elements. Sounds like an objective system to me.

I already told you I don't define "All these people agree with me" as a rational argument. Show me a "diametrically opposed rational decision/conclusion" that has nothing to do with morality.