galanthus

A right wing European is also a little too right wing for Lemmy.

If the company fails, the responsibility for that is not on the workers. Why would they care if it does, if they can just extract all of the money for themselves?

The responsibility for managing the company should be on the people that are responsible for the company itself.

This is not to say, that they should not be represented in decisionmaking, they probably should, but since they do not own the organisations that employ them, they have no right to dictate how they should be run.

Could say the same to you.

If morality is subjective, all morality is based on nothing, that is rather the point.

I am not comparing "living according to a manufactured moral code" to the Higgs boson, this is both a misrepresentation of my argument and a category error.

I seem to be perfectly able to do so: objective morality is supernatural, but what makes you think it is reason enough to dismiss it?

We assume some things to exist without proof all the time, and I am not even talking about how we assume the external world exists, but about things like dark matter and the Higgs bosom. Why is an assumption of the existence of a supernatural thing different in terms of credibility from an assumption of the existence of something that exists in nature.

So lynchings are fine, then?

It's not better, my point is yours doesn't exist. It is also the exact same moral subjectivism.

I understand that if moral subjectivism is correct, morality is subjective. But you can't just say that analytically true statement over and over again, and expect it to work as an argument. How can you be sure it is subjective?

Why is the subjectivity of morality the default assumption? It is a claim, is it not?

Lynching is bad, but there are exceptions

If you say lynchings are bad, that means that justice should be delivered by the state. But you seem to think, that it does not matter who does it. It seems like a contradiction.

But you seem pretty certain morality is subjective, which is not only unproven, but goes against our intuitions.

You seem to think I am comparing objective religious morality with subjective secular morality. This is not the case. I am comparing two accounts of morality, according to one of which morality is independent of subjectivity, and is singular, and according to another all moral views held by all people are subjective.

Your morality is based on "doing what is best for society". But are you capable of constructing a rational deductive argument with sound propositions that proves that this is, indeed, what morality is? If not, in what way is your morality better than religious morality. Both are "preferences", according to you, that are not based on rationality.

What is it if not an alternative? Morality is either objective or subjective. You believe it is the latter, but how can you be so sure you are correct?

I am simply saying that it is a very unnatural way to think about morality, and this is why my argument works. Some people, I believe, would rather say that God is real than that morality is subjective. You can say the opposite of that, of course, but this is how philosophical arguments work.

I don't see the problem you are referring to.

I am so sorry. I understand now I was very immoral when I said that lynchings are bad. I now see that due process is pointless, and we should just kill people we believe to be evil willy nilly.

I understand that I follow morality. The question is, what is morality. If you are correct, it is subjective. If you are wrong, it isn't. I am not sure what you are trying to say.