Why are you explaining this to me? It is Observer who wants to debate that point – and in a different thread, I suppose. Remember that I asked you “Are you interested?” So your response is not an answer to my question.
I don’t see the connection between “Morality is objective” and “Nobody wants their consent violated”.
Because consent violation is: “I don’t want that”. It’s the only possible foundation to morality.
chuckle obsrvr admitted that he put me on ignore before and just admitted it again.
His idol James didn’t do that!
Perhaps that’s the reason he’s no longer on this board.
I take it that you’re not interested in having a debate with Observer.
I’m doing it right now. He put me on ignore because he couldn’t handle it. He then states that I’m insane and he needs to ignore me.
What I’m saying is the truth of it all.
Nobody wants their consent violated. It’s the basest truth in all of existence.
I know why he’s ignoring this discussion. It’s hurting his ego that life is currently not good in some way.
Rose colored glasses.
He knows it’s true. Can’t handle it.
Until you admit the problem, there is no solution mode. Then… like James, you are part of the problem.
I think he wanted a proper debate in a separate thread dedicated to it. (Could be a thing of the past, though.)
I don’t think he “put you on ignore”. Rather, I think he’s merely ignoring you in the sense that he’s reading your posts but not responding to them. (He’s an observer after all.)
You’re supposed to prove (to Lamborghini) that “Morality is objective”. “Nobody wants their consent violated” is a different statement, one that is not the subject of your debate, but one that you can use as a premise in your argument. Albeit, I don’t see how you can do so. I still don’t see the connection.
But that’s what you have to do with respect to Ventilator – I mean, Pedro. And he’s not here.
What you have to prove to Observer is something else: you have to prove that you can prove that morality is objective.
I think the reason he’s ignoring the discussion is because it’s difficult – at times, somewhat frustrating – trying to have a discussion with you.
Actually I don’t read them -but - I read Yours. And when you quote him I end up seeing what he is saying.
I was only slightly curious how Aventador was going to attempt a debate - I rarely read his either - but —
Alright then. I haven’t ignored a poster ever (30 years). I wear it as a badge of honor. Now I know what a Trump supporter is really like. Way to represent your kind!
By the way. My post makes sense.
Nobody wants their consent violated is the easiest stupidest argument to make to anyone even if their IQ is negative 12. That’s objective morality in a nutshell.
So… shrug
It’s true for all beings and will always be true for all beings under every possible circumstance.
Can you please stop boasting?
Perhaps to you. But I am not sure it makes sense to others. And you wrote it for others, not for yourself.
I don’t think anyone argues that “Nobody wants their consent violated” is false. I certainly don’t. It’s just that the connection between that statement and the statement that “Morality is objective” isn’t quite clear.
Alright, so it seems like you’re saying the following:
“Nobody wants their consent violated” is a moral statement
“Nobody wants their consent violated” is true regardless of what anyone thinks
From (1) and (2), we can conclude that there are at least some moral statements that are true regardless of what anyone thinks
This is a rough attempt at reconstructing your argument in a bit clearer terms.
I agree with (2) but I disagree with (1). That’s definitely NOT a moral statement. A moral statement is an ought statement such as “You ouught not to abort the baby”. There is no “ought” nor “should” in “Nobody wants their consent violated”.
But I’m not the debater here, so what do I know?
I’m not sure that statement is true. 
But someone needs to define “morality” if this is going to continue.
I guess I should correct myself then. He was supposed to write it for others, not for himself.
Well, he already did. Morality is “Noone wants their consent violated”.
No - I meant an actual definition - not - whatever that statement is.
Morality is a set of moral beliefs. That’s it.
But what are moral beliefs? They are, first of all, beliefs. But what kind of beliefs? First of all, they are beliefs that can be expressed using ought statements e.g. “Person P should make decision D under these circumstances”. But of course, that’s not a sufficient condition. There are beliefs that can be expressed using ought statements that aren’t moral beliefs e.g. “You ought to drink water every day”. Examples of moral beliefs include statements such as “Women must not abort their babies”, “Humans must not kill other humans”, “People shouldn’t steal from other people” and so on. Moral beliefs generally have to do with how living beings ought to treat other living beings under various circumstances.
“Nobody wants their consent violated” is not an instance of morality because it is a not a set of beliefs but a single belief. Morever, it is not a moral belief because it’s not an ought statement.
But what is “objective morality”? What the flying fuck does that mean? I guess it refers to a set of moral beliefs each one of which is true. So when someone asks “Is there objective morality?”, I take it they mean “Is there a set of moral beliefs each one of which is true?”
And what about statements such as “Morality is objective”? What does that mean? I guess it means that the truth value of moral beliefs is independent from what people think their truth value is. So if a moral belief is true, it is true regardless of whether John thinks it’s true or false. If he thought it’s true, it would still be true. If he thought it’s false, it would still be true.
And what about the opposite? What does the freaking opposite mean? What does “Morality is subjective” mean? Well, it means . . . the opposite: that the truth value of any given moral belief is determined by what humans (some or all) think its truth value is. This is the position that Aventador was going to argue. I have no idea how though because it’s practically indefensible. It’s obviously false. But perhaps he wasn’t going to argue that position . . . the opposite of moral objectivity is moral subjectivity, but if you’re arguing against moral objectivity, that does not necessarily mean you’re arguing in favor of moral subjectivity.
And that’s where prom the eternal comes in. His argument is that morality is neither objective nor subjective because moral beliefs have no truth value. And they don’t because moral beliefs are imperative sentences such as “Don’t lie!”, “You women over there, don’t you dare abort!” and so on. While I agree that imperative sentences have no truth value, I disagree that moral beliefs – and ought statements in general – are imperative sentences. They aren’t. “You shouldn’t steal” is not the same as “Don’t steal”. And so that’s where he made a mistake. An ought statement such as “You shouldn’t abort” is equivalent to “The consequences of abortion are of lesser preference to you than the consequences of not aborting”. That’s obviously either true or false.
But Aventador the Bull didn’t show up, so we can’t tell what he was going to argue for for the time being. We are left in the dark.
I explained how the statement
“Nobody wants their consent violated” in ought terms…
I said that we can conclude that since everyone in some way shape or form is having their consent violated, then, the imperative is to violate as little consent as possible (harm reduction) until we solve that problem once and for all.
From here we can develop a moral calculus.
We already do this to some extent.
My intent is not private language.
You explained how the statement “Nobody wants their consent violated” in ought terms?
What does that even mean? (:
It’s not an ought statement. It cannot be. And by extension, it’s not a moral belief. “People ought to violate as little consent as possible” on the other hand is an ought statement – and it is a moral one.
How does that prove that morality is objective? You are merely concluding that “We should violate as little consent as possible”. Unlike that other statement of yours, this one is most definitely a moral belief. But did you prove that its truth value is independent from what anyone thinks? That was your task.
So… as I stated in my opening post.
You are insane if you want your consent violated.
Nobody is that insane! Nobody.
People like to violate consent, but! nobody wants theirs violated. I used the example of hell to illustrate this.
From this we can agree that there is an imperative in our current consent violating cosmos.
Additionally … I would add that the more hell you create for someone creates conditions that make it less likely to solve this problem.
Thus, by moral imperative, if you want this problem solved for you, stop traumatizing the fuck out of people so that they can actually, collectively, have enough cognitive space to work on solving this problem. Being in fight or flight 24/7 is not conducive to having the cognitive space the work this problem.
Note that I agree with you when you say that “Nobody wants their consent violated”. I believe many other people do as well (e.g. Observer.) Also note that I already said this few posts ago. So there is no reason for you to prove this claim to me, nor is there any reason for you to insist that it is true over and over again as if I’m disputing it.
What’s obvious to me is that your argument consists of a premise that is “Nobody wants their consent violated” and a conclusion that is “People ought to violate as little consent as possible”. That’s obvious to me. What’s not obvious to me is the connection between the two i.e. the mechanism by which you derived the second claim from the first.
It is extremely important that the connection between the premises and the conclusion in an argument is obvious. Otherwise, you don’t have much of an argument. At best, you have a hint. But this is a debate and hints have no place within a debate.
Moreover! – and this seems to be far more important – you set out to prove that “Morality is objective” not that “People ought to violate as little consent as possible”. So either you did not prove what you set out to prove or you (once again) failed to make the connection between your premises (“People ought to violate as little consent as possible”) and your conclusion (“Morality is objective”) clear.
So Magnus,
Where I make the link is that constant trauma and fight or flight cannot allow the focus to solve the problem all of us share - ending consent violation for all of us.
It’s irrational to directly violate consent because you lose one more person to help solve the problem.
And we need everyone we can get.
How does that prove that morality is objective?
Because we all have a baseline regardless of your opinion of the matter.
The baseline is a purpose statement.
We need to eradicate consent violation while fulfilling all our desires forever as the prize, as the goal.
It’s true by definition.
That is not just a truth, it is an imperative.
No matter what permutation of being arises, this will always be true for all possible beings.
Thus, objective.
You have to present an argument that concludes that for every moral statement (S) its truth value is independent from what anyone thinks its truth value is.
I don’t see you doing that.
Instead, I see you arguing that some particular moral statement (“People ought to violate as little consent as possible”) is true and asserting that it is true independently from what anyone thinks. The former seems unnecessary and the latter is not an argument but an assertion.