It is not ratinal to decide actions which are inteactions on the preferneces of one party alone.
Morality is not political
Weren’t you saying that the majority decide what is moral?
You’re using morality for more than individual actions.
Arent you?
Therefore, you’re using it for other people’s actions, for persuading them to do what you want to do.
Everybody is using it for their and everybody elses actions. I play no central role.
If your conception of morality guides individual actions as well, but also has additional requirements, I’m contending that your additional requirements have no valid metaphysical foundation.
That depends on whether or not your “individual actions” inlcude interacitons. if they do, the interests
of the other parties need to be taken into account.
Rationality is not a motivation, it is value-neutral.
How does anyone end up raitional if no-one is motivated to be? Are you quite sure you haven’t confused
“rationality is value neutral because if you don’t get any values out of it your don’t put into it”
with
“No one would ever value rationality”
You can start with a predefined notion of adequate, but only if you justify it explicitly.
I don’t have to justify common defintions.
What moral system do you defend?
Where did I say I was defending one? I said subjectivism doen’t work.
Argumentum ad consequentums are logically invalid.
You cannot logically conclude that something exists in objective reality because you like its consequences.
But morality doens’t exist in objective reality. it is a human creation, and humans are entitled to reject
versions of ti that don’t work becaue they dont work.
If your assumptions were justified, I missed it. Please justify them for me.
The burden is on you to explain how your definition “morality is about right and wrong” is different
from mine: “morality is about the requation of conduct”.
Our definitions overlap in some instances but aren’t identical. You add constraints, such as the idea that any moral system which justifies murder is not a valid moral system.
It obviiusly isn’t. If our definitions differ, mine is right.
Yours is also narrower than mine because mine holds that morality exists even in the context of wholly isolated individuals, whereas yours says morality is about interpersonal interactions.
I said “largely”.
You’re arguing from definitions
You say that like its a bad thing.
instead of showing the reasoning process which starts with rational principles and ends up with moral principles.
Why would I need to do that to show that subjectivism is wrong?
It is not ratinal to decide actions which are inteactions on the preferneces of one party alone.
Weren’t you saying that the majority decide what is moral?
Arent you?
Everybody is using it for their and everybody elses actions. I play no central role.
That depends on whether or not your “individual actions” inlcude interacitons. if they do, the interests of the other parties need to be taken into account.
How does anyone end up raitional if no-one is motivated to be? Are you quite sure you haven’t confused
“rationality is value neutral because if you don’t get any values out of it your don’t put into it”
with
“No one would ever value rationality”
I don’t have to justify common defintions.
Where did I say I was defending one? I said subjectivism doen’t work.
You cannot logically conclude that something exists in objective reality because you like its consequences. But morality doens’t exist in objective reality. it is a human creation, and humans are entitled to reject versions of ti that don’t work becaue they dont work.
The burden is on you to explain how your definition “morality is about right and wrong” is different from mine: “morality is about the requation of conduct”.
It obviiusly isn’t. If our definitions differ, mine is right.
I said “largely”.
You say that like its a bad thing.
Why would I need to do that to show that subjectivism is wrong?
I don’t want to spend any more time on this. I’m done.