'So it appears that I have been thoroughly called out by David Gordon at Mises.org, ridiculed for my "preposterously bad" reasoning, told that I should learn how to construct basic arguments, and been loftily informed that I have failed miserably in my philosophical goals. The article is called The Molyneux Problem, and it is a review of my free book Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics. (By the way, I have asked Mises.org whether they will publish this response, but I have received no reply.)
I must admit that I am always skeptical when a review starts with insults - when I studied acting and playwriting at the National Theatre School in Montréal, I was always told to "show it, don't say it!" If my arguments are illogical, showing this will surely reveal my incompetence - the insults are unnecessary. The logical fallacy involved is called "poisoning the well." '
Read the rest of the response here.
http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35935.aspx
Sat. 12/07/07 14:04 EDT.post #208Just a tangential note here:I suggest editing your tags and separating the tags words with semi-colons. This will create multiple tags and hence multiple opportunities for people to find this post.As it stands, your (single) tag is just one long string of words, a string which is highly unlikely to ever be typed as a search term.For example, a search for the word "atheism" (one of your tags) does not result in locating your post. Try it here:http://mises.org/Community/tags/default.aspxMy suggestion:Replacedavid gordon stefan molyneux philosophy response review secular ethics atheismwithdavid gordon; stefan molyneux; philosophy; response; review; secular ethics; atheismYou can conveniently edit just the tags of your post by clicking on the "edit tags" link (while logged in), to the right of your tags at the bottom of your post. No need to edit the entire post to get at the tag list.
Edit:I've taken the liberty of putting the tag list I suggested at the bottom of my own post.
Sounds whiny from Stef. If he has been insulted by Gordon that is his problem. Gordon did nowehere insult his person only his arguments and his work which is fair game in a honestly-given review. The only time he spoke about Stef the person it was to say he was intelligent and the contrary of stupid.
Gordon did basically insult Stef when referring to his "facile intelligence" just after he says Stef is smart. This is a backhanded 'compliment' meant to be read as an insult.
People on these boards, I think, have a hard time being objective on certain things. Molyneux is one of them.
I must admit that I am always skeptical when a review starts with insult
That's a wonderful admission of personal taste.
Here is mine: you're a cultic creep.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
delete double post
Molyneux is one of them.
Why be "objective" (whatever that may mean) with obvious dangerous idiocy which poses as something that it is not that people take way too seriously? It's more amusing, and frankly, "correct" in a way, just to laugh at it in the face.
So what, Gordon makes some condescending remarks towards Molyneux and about the book. No reason to be too sensitive. I get the point Gordon is trying to make, but then Molyneux wasn't writing a book for academics, but for everyday people. I'd have to review the book myself to see how good/bad he really does there. The project to find a real secular ethics isn't a new one, it has hardly be really convincing or successful right now. So what Molyneux tried wasn't as easy as it may seem on face value.
Why be "objective" (whatever that may mean) with obvious dangerous idiocy which poses as something that it is not that people take way too seriously?
Can you use proper grammar please?
You want people to be objective because they will just dismiss bad grammar and run on sentences.
It's more amusing, and frankly, "correct" in a way, just to laugh at it in the face.
Sure. If you are 15 years old.
Do you just laugh at neoconservatives? Neconcservatives meet your criteria of, "obvious dangerous idiocy which poses as something that it is not that people take way too seriously?" Laughing at them gets you nowhere because people do take them seriously. Gordon is from academia he wrote that article, not to "laugh in the face of" Molyneux, but because people take him seriously. Not laughing, but writing a short article instead, is a sign of respect. No matter what is said in it. We all may laugh at George W. Bush, but people take those ideas seriously. Laughing at them gets no one anywhere. It makes other people dislike you and those people will associate the ideas you think correct with their dislike of you. This is why I posit you at being about 15 years old; for not having recognized this.
And from here, you can see that you are only laughing because someone else insulted someone else. You are just an ignorant bystander who cannot form thoughts cohesive enough to form the criticism that led to the insult in the first place. Do you see what I am saying? You aren't laughing in the face of anything. You are quietly laughing alone at your computer at something that took place between two other people.
Subjectivism is great in economics, but it cannot be applied everywhere indiscriminantly. In order to understand other people, at some level, you have to analyze their beliefs free of your own bias. Your bias means nothing to other people.
When the personalities of other human beings and their events, accomplishments, joys, tragedies, and accidents become impenetrable to whatever literary and artistic talents lie around, then, by all means, turn to the subjective; to one’s own little ego and assembled feelings. Explore it and them unceasingly, laying before readers every little detail of what one did, thought, felt, loved, hated, throughout one’s life; that is, from hateful toilet training to all the sturm und drang of middle-class life in the United States.
I must admit that I am always skeptical when a review starts with insults - when I studied acting and playwriting at the National Theatre School in Montréal, I was always told to "show it, don't say it!" If my arguments are illogical, showing this will surely reveal my incompetence - the insults are unnecessary. The logical fallacy involved is called "poisoning the well."
HA! I insult and condescend to people all the time in my blog and posts. But there is a catch. I "show it", either at the beginning middle or end of the article, and thus feel I have earned the right to tell it like is.
For instance, if a learned scholar writes an article proving the moon is made of green cheese, and I refute him, I have earned the right to call him an idiot. That's the reward for my hard work.
In addition, it gives the reader, now respectful [hopefully] of my opinion because he saw I knew what I'm talking about, my opinion. Where did the author go wrong? Was he attempting something that was beyond his powers, although he is still reliable when he knows his place, or do we have evidence that he fell on his head as a baby? The people want to know, and I tell them.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
No. Honestly, I type first and think later, and due to the nature of my job / the way I have to respond in real life, my resposnes are going to be like this most of the time. If you don't like don't egngae me.
Do you just laugh at neoconservatives?
Yes, and so does everyone relevant. That's why it is ultimately a losing position, that is why it is at best the "junior partner" in anything that happens.
Gordon is from academia he wrote that article, not to "laugh in the face of" Molyneux, but because people take him seriously.
That's Gordon. I am a non academic laughing at a non academic. Once again, creepazoid doesn't have to address my amusments at his stupid actions.
And from here, you can see that you are only laughing because someone else insulted someone else.
Not really, though I see what you are saying. I laugh at him because he came to my attention by some article, and he is by his nature a buffoon, so that's what makes me laugh - his mere presence in my mind.
You are just an ignorant bystander who cannot form thoughts cohesive enough to form the criticism that led to the insult in the first place
If i wanted to play the "critique internet troll" game in life that may be correct. However, I am playing the "amused by an idiot" game. He can formulate what ever nonsense sounds come out of his mouth, than again so could my dog. I personally wouldn't waste much time analyzing either.
Laughing at them gets no one anywhere.
It got me amused. And being good at amusing people in such a regard could get a comedian far I suppose.
You are quietly laughing alone at your computer at something that took place between two other people.
Yes, that's what entertainment is. And I was entertained.
Subjectivism is great in economics
It's also in play when I choose a subject to address. I don't "dispassionately" engage creepazoid (Stefan) or you.
Your bias means nothing to other people.
It means nothing to other people - whom it means nothing to. To others it means, something else.
Look, all that cultist has to do is ignore me, and he would probably achieve some form of victory by most people's standards. I chose to react to his idiocy verbally, publicly, and anonymously after all. Either way I am clearly not interested forming a nice, civil, polite, discussion group with the man. To have a "discussion" and discuss things, or even argue would seem silly to me. I certainly have no desire to hear him say BS to my posts like "that was quite illumanting" , "good point", "let me teach you", "why can't you be more rational", etc. I don't categorize him as a human being who I ought to allow to fall into such a plane with me.
Hello Stefan, I'm going to have to say you're both wrong on this issue.
Also:
I actually don't want to distract from Gordon or his article, and turn this into a topic of my aesthetical delights, or my refusal to seriosuly "rationally" (*shudder*) engage some cult internet dude. So if you have something to say, take the last word. I'm done.
Torsten:what Molyneux tried wasn't as easy as it may seem on face value.
Gordon freely admits that in the first few sentences of his review. In fact he basically spends almost the entirety of his intro on it:
"In Universally Preferable Behavior, he takes on an ambitious task. He endeavors to provide a rational basis for morality. Should he succeed, he would not only have achieved something of monumental importance; he would also have rendered a great service to libertarianism. Molyneux's system of morality has resolutely libertarian implications. If he is right, surely a time for rejoicing is at hand."
As for Molyneux's response, it seems to me basically to be a bunch of "well, that's not what I really meant." And while Molyneux isn't exactly known for brevity if you're still wondering why his response to such a fairly short review is so long, it's because of useless crap like this:
David then writes:
"His first claim is that the very fact of engaging in inquiry over the existence of universally preferable behavior suffices to answer the question in the affirmative. If I am engaged in debate about this topic, must I not prefer truth to falsehood? An attempt to deny this leads to contradiction: ‘If I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behavior is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood - as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely' (p. 40)."
First of all, the word "claim" is incorrect. "Claim" is a weasel word designed to downgrade your opponent's arguments - there is no philosophical content or value in the word "claim," since it is by definition a statement with neither empirical or rational backing. A "claim" can be dismissed without argument, since it is not founded on arguments - since I make both prose arguments and break those arguments down into a series of syllogisms, the correct word would be "argument," not "claim."
A good 200 words to say nothing more than "I don't make claims! I make arguments!"
I find this "argument" incredibly bad: basically Gordon points out how Molyneux claims argues that "universally preferable behavior" is valid because if one is alive to argue that it isn't, such a person has engaged in "universally preferable behavior" by breathing and eating. Gordon points out how that acting in accord with bilogical laws to keep oneself alive has nothing to do with moral obligation...which is a large crux of Molyneux's endeavor. Again:
"preferences which can be considered binding upon others can be termed 'universal preferences' or 'moral rules'", Molyneux says in his book.
Molyneux's response to this is:
"UPB is not synonymous with ethics - ethics is a subset of UPB. It is so obvious that biological laws are not the same as moral laws that I don't even know really how to reply to it. [...] If you argue against the validity of UPB, however, when you are only alive because you have followed UPB (eating, drinking, sleeping), that is a self-detonating argument, the same as yelling into someone's ear that sound does not exist. This only proves the validity of UPB, not the subset called ethics."
So "universally preferable behavior" is proven valid because one (or a few?) of the subsets that make it up is proven true? Even though Molyneux explicitly admits at least one of the "subsets" not illustrated by it? Is he serious?
Molyneux does seem to have a counter to when Gordon states: "If someone proposed a rule of the form, "Human beings who meet such-and-such requirements, and not others, may kill under the following circumstances," [...] we could not dismiss the proposal outright because it draws a distinction between two classes of people."
Molyneux did apparently offer a similar hypothetical in his book and state that such a thing would be invalid (which he quotes, of course). But simply offering this example does not seem to refute Gordon's assessment that "Molyneux offers no argument that the rules of morality must respond only to the characteristics that define the human species."
I mean, I suppose Molyneux could "argue" that simply stating "as long as the victim is human, the requirement for universality remains constant", is an "argument", but I'm not sure I would rest on that if I were him...particularly when he is the one who asserts that a "claim" is not an "argument", and it is "claims" that "is "by definition a statement with neither empirical or rational backing."
Later, Molyneux tries to show that Gordon is wrong about Molyneux's rape scenario. He reasserts his position that "it is logically impossible for rape to be UPB", and goes on to "argue" that this is so because "as I repeatedly point out in the book, the word "universally" means "independent of time or place." Thus when David says "at some time or other" he breaks universality, and thus is no longer talking about ethics." [emphasis added]
Once again Molyneux displays his gymnastics. Not a few paragraphs ago, Molyneux made it quite clear that ethics need not be included in a validation of UPB. Once again: "This only proves the validity of UPB, not the subset called ethics." If something can leave out a subset of UPB (ethics), and still prove the validity of UPB, why/ how now can Gordon "break universality" by saying "at some time or other" and "thus [be] no longer talking about ethics"??
One also has to love how Molyneux asserts "thus one man must want to rape, while the other man must desperately not want to be raped" [emphasis added]. Why must the man desperately not want to be raped? Did Molyneux not just get through telling us earlier in this very same piece that "adjectives are not arguments; [...] the words "miserable" and "preposterously" are not philosophical or rational terms."
Molyneux seems quite confused.
Another interesting tidbit is the way Molyneux takes the opportunity again to imply the validity of his entire thesis by once again denying it is "his" theory and asserting that what he is speaking is "objective truth". But then again, I suppose if he didn't maintain this position of assuredness it wouldn't reflect well on his claim argument of the existence objective reality(?) of "Universally Preferable Behavior".
Molyneux contradicts this toward the end of the piece when he points out Gordon's reference to "[Molyneux's] arguments" as evidence that Gordon accepts UPB because such a statement proves that "[Molyneux] exercise[s] 100% property rights over the creation of the book." If Gordon is wrong to imply it is "Molyneux's theory" or "Molyneux's sense of universally preferable" or "Molyneux's strictures", why/ how do these erroneous phrasings which Molyneux explicitly rejects prove/evidence the validity of the very concept he is claiming "arguing" is "objective truth" (in a book that he has 100% property rights over the creation of, according to the theory strictures "objective truths" presented within)?
In other words, Molyneux spent the entire piece maintaining this is not his sense of anything...that they are not his strictures...yet at the end of the piece he tries to claim "argue" claim that this exact erroneous phrasing (which he explicitly rejects) is somehow evidence supporting not-his concepts presented in his book.
I think Gordon may very well be right, that "because of his facile intelligence, [Molyneux] thinks that he has a talent for philosophical argument and need not undertake the hard labor of learning how such arguments are constructed."
First he talks about UPB not existing (ok, fine!), but then he talks about UPB being "objectively verifiable" or somehow related to "objective reality". Er... sense no-makey.
Behaviour isn't objective anyway, it's just... behaviour. It's a verb. Behaviour is not a "thing" (object). Behaviour is what objects (e.g. humans) do (hence, verb). A ball rolls. A man farts. I get the sense that objective does not mean what he thinks it means.
Objective means we attempt to rule out human observers (i.e. subjective interpetations) wherever possible in our dissertation.
Had to add this in here...Wenzel offers his own assessment of Molyneux in Wenzel's area of expertise. I'd say it's pretty damn accurate, as of course economics and finance is Molyneux's weakest area (yes, even weaker than the philosophy Gordon as pointed out):
I don't think it's any big secret that Molyneux tends towards sloppiness as a thinker, and I think if he were being honest he would admit he hasn't done a great deal of homework to this point; he hasn't needed to to get by. I don't see why he finds it so insulting that Gordon pointed out what's pretty obvious to many others in/around the movement. This is actually a watershed moment for him. He's been given credit for his talent to bring people in, now we need to find out if that's all he's got. The gauntlet has been cast, either he will elevate his intellectual endeavors to prove he is not some charlatan or continue half-*ssing it through enough to keep his audience entertained.
Let's look at Molyneux's final notes:
1. Truth is universally preferable to falsehood. i.e. it is not a subjective opinion, but arguments which conform to reason and evidence.
Well, this is obviously false. Anybody who lies demonstrates that they prefer falsehood to truth. Molyneux tried to clarify the specific situations where it was true, but so what? I can specify the situations where it is not true...it is not universal.
2. It is universally preferable for my arguments to be rational, and not irrational.
Again, this is false. Anybody who purposefully uses logical fallacies demonstrates that this is false. Thomas Sowell likes to refer to these people as "glib demagogues".
3. It is universally preferable for me not to contradict myself.
What can I say that I haven't already? Anybody who purposefully does this demonstrates that this is false. Anyone ever hear of doublethink or cognitive dissonance?
4. In the realm of rational argument, success is universally preferable to failure, and success and failure are not subjective outcomes.
What does Molyneux consider to be success in the realm of rational argument? Perhaps this is the first true statement Molyneux has made in his finale? If I want to make a sound argument, I prefer success? Okay. I can buy that.
5. I exercise 100% property rights over the creation of the book Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics (he refers to it as my book, and my arguments etc.)
Cute. 100% property rights. I like that. Because property rights are not a social construct? Right? This guy is an anarchist?
6. I am 100% responsible for the creation of the book, and for all of the contents therein.
Okay. I'll take his word for it, though I don't know why he would want to claim full responsibility for nonsense. Four of his final points are obviously false, and he wants to claim he is the only writer of this failure?
Seriously, why should we take his ideas seriously if we can immediately demonstrate that 2/3 of his conclusions are false? What kind of useful theory has results like that? We might as well flip a coin about what ought to be considered "universally preferable". We'd have better results doing that.
Gotlucky and John James, both of you are wrong, as is Stefan Molyneux. You're all wrong.
does there need to be that much writing in the book to find that people need to eat to live, and because people eat to live, and there are people that are alive, that upb exists? could this not have been said with fewer pages and in less words? what does this UPB of eating to live have to do with ethics? why not have the book consist of arguments for what universialy prefered ethics are?
vive la insurrection: Do you just laugh at neoconservatives? Yes, and so does everyone relevant.
Yes, and so does everyone relevant.
Define relevant. Do you mean relevant as in: capability to affect the world around us? Because by that definition neoconservatives are the most relevant people in modern US politics.
The entirety of the left spent 8 years laughing at George Bush. Who was made irrelevant during those 8 years? Did the laughter stop any wars? Did it reverse any erosion of our liberties?
You're all wrong.
i'm at the rape part of the book, it says people can't involuntary rape, but what about the sleepwalking rape cases and automatism? replace the word rape with othe initiation of force crimes done under autmatism.
There we run into a problem, clarifying what objective and subjective means. There are various ways to give meaning to those terms. To me this is mainly a question perspective. Subjective is from the perspective of a person in time and space. Since it is the point of view of a person it is a perception that has to go through that persons senses and a process of interpretation until it can be given that subjective meaning. Objective on the other hand is a birds eye perspective cleansed from certain influences blurring personal perceptions.
I think a discussion of ethics is lost on this site, or forum.
For the most part Mises' 'subjective value' has, because of a misunderstanding of that term, attracted almost entirely young moral nihilists who reject any objective value or morality as being superstition. Even quite easy to understand and conventional ideas are rejected and nitpicked mercilessly to this end. "Oh you think I need food to live? What if I'm Terry Shiavo and I don't like it?" "I can't lie? But what if I need to a tell a girl she isn't fat?!?!"
To them capitalism entails suffering anyone's and everyone's opinion of what is true or false, as well as their actions, without exception as long as they own property or money. A situation where even schizophrenic guy is just as rational as the most rigorous scientist. "Don't use your psychologism on me! Stirner says that having an ego means you're right on!"
Some subjectivity may just be better then others. Concerning human need ist may just be valid to work with some general minimum assumptions. Also consider the confusion of methodological individualism with prescriptive political or cultural individualism.
You could be right. Truth be told I've only found out 'facile' was a word at all reading this article.
John Ess: I think a discussion of ethics is lost on this site, or forum. For the most part Mises' 'subjective value' has, because of a misunderstanding of that term, attracted almost entirely young moral nihilists who reject any objective value or morality as being superstition. Even quite easy to understand and conventional ideas are rejected and nitpicked mercilessly to this end. "Oh you think I need food to live? What if I'm Terry Shiavo and I don't like it?" "I can't lie? But what if I need to a tell a girl she isn't fat?!?!" To them capitalism entails suffering anyone's and everyone's opinion of what is true or false, as well as their actions, without exception as long as they own property or money. A situation where even schizophrenic guy is just as rational as the most rigorous scientist. "Don't use your psychologism on me! Stirner says that having an ego means you're right on!"
You are just so cute!
John Ess:For the most part Mises' 'subjective value' has, because of a misunderstanding of that term, attracted almost entirely young moral nihilists who reject any objective value or morality as being superstition.
This is pretty spot on. For every respectable subjectivist, there's a handful of extremists taking things out of context. You see the same sort of thing with the is-ought gap or Mises' quote "there is no science of oughts." Somehow this gets translated into: "there is no such thing as ought."
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
One thing that was interesting to me about the exchange is this: What do we find out about David Gordon from reading his piece? Well we find out what he thinks of Stef, his book and the goal Stef had set out to accomplish in writing it, which is what his article is about. In other words we don't find out anything about David Gordon that isn't the theme of the article. Meanwhile what do we find out about Stef from his reply? That is, what do we find out about him beyond what is the theme of his reply (ie that his book does not suck and why he thinks that is the case). We find out: a.) That he has contacted mises.org about publishing his reply b.) That he is always sceptical when a review starts with insults c.) That he has studied playwriting and acting at the National Theatre School in Montréal d.) That he spent a long time writing his book e.) That he was disappointed at David for not discussing his seven ethical categories No wonder he feels insulted when he can not seperate himself from his work. The discussion should be about the book Stef, who cares where you studied to be a playwright, etc.
Mikachusetts: This is pretty spot on. For every respectable subjectivist, there's a handful of extremists taking things out of context. You see the same sort of thing with the is-ought gap or Mises' quote "there is no science of oughts." Somehow this gets translated into: "there is no such thing as ought."
Normative statements are statements about the world as it ought to be. Positive statements are statements about the world as it is. A statement can be both normative and positive, such as "Murder is against the law in America and ought to be against the law in America", but you can see that there are really two separate thoughts in that statement.
I don't know who is saying that there is no such thing as an ought, as it seems pretty obvious that people can make ought statements. But this does not mean that normative statements are objective. They are always subjective. If you've read any of my posts, you would notice that I very much have an opinion as to what morality ought to be. But just because I have an opinion does not make it objective, and I fully recognize that there are other people who do not share my opinions.
John Ess's post completely misses the point of people who realize the truth that morality is subjective. His post his straw man heaven.
gotlucky,
Consider the statement: "If you want to acheive goal Y, then you ought to take action X."
It isn't normative, and it isn't subjective. Action X is the best way to achieve goal Y -- this is a fact about reality and doesn't change based on your opinion. This is exactly the problem that I was agreeing with John about. There is a huge difference between morality being individualized and being subjective. The former says "the best way for me to live my life might not be the best way for you to live yours" and the latter says "the best way for anyone to live their life is whatever they think it is."
For the record
a quick description on subjectivism:
The world of nature and the social world consists of facts The social world consists of facts within the perspectives of acting individuals on how they see these facts. If one is thinking of any form of or category of sociology, anthropology, ontology, epistemology, or if we must say it ethics, etc in relation of man to the social world - we are distinct from a natural science, or some abstract "platonic" world of triangles, etc in that we have to pay attention to these facts no less than to the facts themselves.
I don't think most of us "subjectivists" are straying from this line of thought. Once again, I think the word "perspectivist", or maybe even something like "kaledics" may be less confusing words for people who think we are misunderstanding things.
One thing that was interesting to me about the exchange is this: What do we find out about David Gordon from reading his piece? Well we find out what he thinks of Stef, his book and the goal Stef had set out to accomplish in writing it, which is what his article is about. In other words we don't find out anything about David Gordon that isn't the theme of the article.
Very well said, Marko. Dave Gordon is a professional.
Maybe I should start doing that as well. I remember when I was in high school...oops.
Mikachusetts: Consider the statement: "If you want to acheive goal Y, then you ought to take action X."
That is a normative statement. It is subjective. You are stating that you think action X is the best way to achieve goal Y. This is entirely different from the following statement:
If you want to achieve goal Y, then you must take action X.
That is not a normative statement, however some people may still use the word "must" as "ought", in which case the sentence means entirely the same thing. To say "if you want to live, you ought to eat" is a strange statement. You have a duty to eat? No. Is this advice? Strange to call "an opinion offered" objective. A far more accurate statement is "If you want to live, then you must eat". There are no two ways about it.
Mikachusetts: It isn't normative, and it isn't subjective. Action X is the best way to achieve goal Y -- this is a fact about reality and doesn't change based on your opinion.
It isn't normative, and it isn't subjective. Action X is the best way to achieve goal Y -- this is a fact about reality and doesn't change based on your opinion.
Those two words don't belong together in the same thought. If it is the "best" way, then it is your opinion about what the best way is. "If you are hungry, then you ought to eat", that is an opinion. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might choose not to eat when they are hungry. "If you don't want to die of starvation, then you must eat", that is a fact. But the two statements do not mean the same thing.
Mikachusetts: This is exactly the problem that I was agreeing with John about. There is a huge difference between morality being individualized and being subjective. The former says "the best way for me to live my life might not be the best way for you to live yours" and the latter says "the best way for anyone to live their life is whatever they think it is."
This is exactly the problem that I was agreeing with John about. There is a huge difference between morality being individualized and being subjective. The former says "the best way for me to live my life might not be the best way for you to live yours" and the latter says "the best way for anyone to live their life is whatever they think it is."
You keep throwing around the word "best". There is no objective idea "best". It is an opinion. And your statement about subjective morality is just a straw man. Not everyone shares the same morality. Nevermind individualizing it, there are people who just plain don't agree about morality. Murderers think murder is good (at least at the time of the murder). I believe murder is wrong. We have our own subjective viewpoints. Neither is objectively right. Obviously I think my opinion is right, but it's not right in any objective sense. The mere fact that there are murderers demonstrates that morality is not objective. People do, in fact, have different ideas about what is moral.
You can't wish that fact away by stating that people who recognize this are moral nihilists. A fact is a fact is a fact, even if you name call (not that you did, but John Ess certainly did).
"If you want to acheive goal Y, then you ought to take action X."
This is a subjective statement. You left an option open
Perhaps better stated:
"If you wish to achieve X, Y must be done"
If you wish to take that view, we can start there.
Nya nya, Vive! I beat you to it! I win.
lol. Well, I guess I'll bow out disgracefully from this discussion than.
No, come back! I was just teasing
Vive,
I think the problem is that some of the more "extreme" subjectivists constantly lose sight of the fact that we are already immersed in the world, that there is always a context. Case in point:
gotlucky:You keep throwing around the word "best". There is no objective idea "best". It is an opinion.
I never use the word objective in my post, let alone talk about "objective best." You've made nonsense out of this because you've stripped away the context. In the context of acheiving a goal, some actions are better than others, and there is nothing wrong with finding a best one.
The mere fact that there are murderers demonstrates that morality is not objective. People do, in fact, have different ideas about what is moral.
People have different ideas about physics. Does that mean physics is subjective? No, of course not. Don't confuse beliefs about X with X itself.
Regarding ought vs. must:
The reason I don't say must is because its not really a must. If I want to be a successful musician, what is it that I must do? Practice my instrument everyday? Well, isn't it possible that I become successful without doing that? I say I ought to practice everyday, because it is conducive to that end, it is more likely to help me acheive it.
Just because I can choose to do otherwise doesn't make it subjective, it just means that I have the free will (don't take this to mean anymore than it does in the context) to either act in accordance with or against this prescription. Must vs. ought is more of a debate about certainty, not about subjectivity.