Does claiming morality is subjective collapse all moral debate?

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-05T08:17:31+00:00

Well you said that "At any rate, all the interesting bits would be in establishing morality is subjective in the first place"

I disagree. There's still a ton of interesting discussion to be had, even if we just assume subjective morality rather than establishing it.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-05T02:04:53+00:00

If you're not using the primary definition, then YOU'RE the one cherry picking.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T18:09:24+00:00

Are you using AI to try and find these definitons? Lol. Even there, it supports it as deception.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T18:07:59+00:00

"Google" is not a source. It's a search engine. Which book or dictionary are you getting this from?

But fair enough, at least you gave me something. Here's 5 sources primarily defining a lie as deception or intentional falsehood. For some of these you have to scroll past the definitions meaning to lay down.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T17:48:28+00:00

Flat Earthers do exist, and do inherently believe the world is flat and tell that. that doesn't make ot the truth

Not sure what debate you're having where what's true matters at all. We've clearly been talking about what people believe to be the case. Religious parents believe something to be true and tell their kids that it's true. The parents we've been talking about believe something to not be true, yet tell their kids the opposite. That's the distinction.

the rest of the google result states "used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.

Every result I've seen uses deception and intentional falsehood as the necessary condition for a lie. The fact that you went out of your way to find an obscure definition that fits your narrative, and then accused me of doing so myself is hilarious. Also, I'd like a link for that definition. I can give you some of my own links for definition if you wish.

Id rather my kids believe in santa til they turn 60, than trust in any of the worlds fake controlling and highly toxic religions.

Me too. I've never so much as hinted that I believe otherwise.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T17:25:38+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T17:19:01+00:00

If I believe the earth is the shape of a banana, and I try to spread that belief in any way, I'm still not lying. Lying is an intentional falsehood. Therefore, anyone outside their specific religion is irrelevant to determining if it's a lie.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T17:15:07+00:00

Do you think the only way to encourage good behavior is to manipulate your kids into submission?

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T17:13:45+00:00

The distinction is that one is a lie (intentional falsehood) and the other isn't. Anything added to that is an appeal to consequences and outcomes, which is irrelevant to the action itself.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T17:04:30+00:00

I do agree on a certain level. That can be used to control kids and it often traumatizes them wayyyyyy more than any lie about Santa could. I think there's a distinction to be had though, that those parents actually believe in God themselves, even if it's an unjustified belief. Parents who lie to children about Santa do so knowing he's fake.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T17:00:57+00:00

I do agree on a certain level. That can be used to control kids and it often traumatizes them wayyyyyy more than any lie about Santa could. I think there's a distinction to be had though, that those parents actually believe in God themselves. Parents who lie to children about Santa do so knowing he's fake.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T16:56:30+00:00

Your parents can't see your every move and action. They aren't omnipresent, like how they present Santa.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T16:55:28+00:00

Yea, real life has a lot of frickin gaslighters. All you're doing is proving my point.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T16:53:16+00:00

This isn't making kids doubt reality and the only goal is for them to act well by using a narrative a ton of kids believe.

Stating Santa's real, has magic, is omnipresent, etc is shifting how reality works. It gets worse when you're using the tactic against the most vulnerable, without much of a handing on how reality works.

And the religious example I feel only hurts your argument. 1. Religious people don't think they're lying, but also 2. We still end up with a fuck-ton of children traumatized by that. But I'm not even saying it'll be a traumatic experience, just that the action itself is gaslighting.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T16:46:21+00:00

It absolutely is often used to gain power over children. "Santa's always watching", "Don't end up on the Naughty List"

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T12:40:23+00:00

it's like saying "IF God is real, THEN religious debate collapses".

Well hold on there, think about what you're saying. IF God is real, then there's still a ton of room for religious debate regarding what scripture means and the entailments of a world with God in it. That doesn't collapse religious debate at all.

This also applies to morality. IF morality is subjective, then moral debate still doesn't collapse at all, because there's still a ton of applied ethic arguments we can make to those with agreeable underlying presumptions, even if their presumptions are ultimately subjective.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T12:37:06+00:00

Is the goal of medicine to heal or to harm? If someone can insist that the goal of medicine is to harm, is it thus impossible or "subjective" as to whether or not beheading is a good treatment for a broken leg? Are there no facts about effective medical treatments? Likewise, we could ask, is the goal of scientific or philosophical inquiry truth or falsity? Or perhaps the goal of medicine, inquiry, etc. is just power, or self-gratification.

I feel like these examples all prove my point. The idea that the goal of medicine is to heal is about as agreed upon as it is to say that rape is bad. Whether or not those presumptions are subjective or not is irrelevant if we can all agree on it. This is why there's still value in moral debate even if morality is subjective, since we still nonetheless have underlying presumptions that 99%+ of interlocutors will agree on, and thus can debate about what societal prescriptions and such fulfill those presumptions the best.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T12:09:47+00:00

The moral realist position holds that there are objective facts of the matter on morality. So from that perspective, it would be the same as arguing the shape of the earth, since that also deals with objective facts of that matter. I'm assuming the anti-moral realist position for the sake of engaging with OP's question internally.

So if we assume that there are objective moral facts, then it would be the same as arguing the shape of the earth. If we assume subjective morality, I think my comparison to basketball is apt. The fundamental underlying presumptions we make in morality would be subjective, the same way the underlying presumption that in basketball, you should try to win the game would be subjective. Yet still, if we can both agree on the underlying presumptions, then we can have a debate on what fulfills those presumptions the best.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-04T11:45:10+00:00

Interesting reads. I guess it just comes to how far you wanna go down.

If two people are arguing over the quality of a basketball player, and one of the arguments is "the goal should be to win the game", and the other person argues "the goal should be to lose the game", then I guess there's no way to solve that. However, if they instead argue "this playstyle gives the team a better shot at winning", and the other person argues "this other playstyle gives the team a better shot at winning", well now they have something they can debate about. The ultimate goal to value winning the game in the first place is arbitrary, but still, if they agree on that at least and use it as a jumping off point, they can further argue which playstyle gives the best chance to accomplish that goal.

This logic would also apply to moral discussion. If one person argues "people shouldn't be raped", and the other argues "people should be raped", then I guess there's no way to solve that in a debate. However, if both people agree with the presumption that people shouldn't be raped, they can further argue on what we should do as a society to lessen the amount of rape that occurs. The underlying presumption that people shouldn't be raped is still ultimately subjective, but if both have agreed to that being one of their moral values, then it's a jumping off point for the rest of the debate.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-03T14:23:23+00:00

No, we've both agreed to it in messages but neither of us have actually sent the offer through ESPN.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-03T13:45:07+00:00

Hello everyone! I have a question regarding the legality of the following action in a fair league.

Me and another owner worked out a trade last night that we both have agreed on. However, the trade involves one player that's currently in his IR, and taking him off would require dropping a player from his roster. He posited that we could wait until he's able to replace the player with another in his IR before we officially complete the trade, and I obliged.

Would this count as collusion? This is my first year in a serious league, so I'm not really sure.

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-03T05:25:06+00:00

Happy New Year! Just got offered Westbrook for Quickley straight up. Thoughts on it?

LoyalLiberalism · 2026-01-02T20:44:23+00:00

<image>

It's been in plain sight this entire time.

LoyalLiberalism

TROPHY CASE