JHuber wrote:
Well, remember our little discussion about wrong tended to apply to morality. The definition of wrong in this theory depends on extrinsic subjects. Extrinsic subjects continuously change in conversation so there will always be wrong. But then, we are subject to many boundary conditions.

Okay, I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture of what your theory means.

Well then, if I delete the Base Rule from my theory, how do I explain the immoralities of incest and cannibalism?

I think you need something more than just very abstract metaphysical considerations to show how anything is wrong, honestly. The perennial problem is that of deriving "ought" from "is" (in this case, "Everyone is a subject related to other subjects," or whatever). And I also don't think incest and eating other people *is* always wrong. (For example, if you swallow semen after giving someone head, you're eating something from your own species, but it's not wrong to do so.)

Thinking of this further, I believe this definition would apply to slavery.

Do you mean that unconditional practical reasoning supports slavery? It doesn't, though. Using people as tools *might* count as an instance of hypothetical, or conditional, instrumental judgment, but not the categorical or unconditional alternative.

Well then, if I delete the Base Rule from my theory, how do I explain the immoralities of incest and cannibalism?

I think you need something more than just very abstract metaphysical considerations to show how anything is wrong, honestly. The perennial problem is that of deriving "ought" from "is" (in this case, "Everyone is a subject related to other subjects," or whatever). And I also don't think incest and eating other people *is* always wrong. (For example, if you swallow semen after giving someone head, you're eating something from your own species, but it's not wrong to do so.)

Sorry, but I have to be very careful to not fall into this trap. Straying too far from abstract metaphysical considerations is flirting with subjectivity. Flirt too much with subjectivity and you start getting into cultural morality. I don't want to be thought of as a cultural moralist.

There are other bodily fluids besides semen. Perhaps you don't believe it is not wrong to consume these either. Could this be an example of the cultural morality trap?

Thinking of this further, I believe this definition would apply to slavery.

Do you mean that unconditional practical reasoning supports slavery? It doesn't, though. Using people as tools *might* count as an instance of hypothetical, or conditional, instrumental judgment, but not the categorical or unconditional alternative.

Slavery is unconditional possession. Employment is conditional possession.

JHuber wrote:
Straying too far from abstract metaphysical considerations is flirting with subjectivity. Flirt too much with subjectivity and you start getting into cultural morality. I don't want to be thought of as a cultural moralist.

Well, you've got to build up the courage to endanger yourself with subjectivity if you want to go anywhere philosophically, though. Otherwise, you might not get infected with cultural relativism, but you won't be able to do anything more than say things using nearly impenetrable transcendental jargon, either.

Besides, you have to do a lot more than pure metaphysics to even understand what gay sex, incest, etc. are.

Slavery is unconditional possession. Employment is conditional possession.

The "unconditional" in your "unconditional possession" isn't the same as the one in my "unconditional practical reason," though. I mean in terms of the series of means and ends, etc. (I'm not sure what *you* mean, though.)

Well, you've got to build up the courage to endanger yourself with subjectivity if you want to go anywhere philosophically, though. Otherwise, you might not get infected with cultural relativism, but you won't be able to do anything more than say things using nearly impenetrable transcendental jargon, either.

That's true. That's why we are at war. If you want to get anywhere philosophically you've got to be subjective. This is a trap. I won't fall for it.

My ideas are about 1500 years too late anyway:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations-medieval

Besides, you have to do a lot more than pure metaphysics to even understand what gay sex, incest, etc. are.

Frankly, I happen to think that gay sex, incest, etc. exist because the Base Rule academically doesn't.

The "unconditional" in your "unconditional possession" isn't the same as the one in my "unconditional practical reason," though. I mean in terms of the series of means and ends, etc. (I'm not sure what *you* mean, though.)

Ok, but wouldn't you agree that "unconditional practical reason," is more about seriousness than it is about morality?

JHuber wrote:
That's true. That's why we are at war. If you want to get anywhere philosophically you've got to be subjective. This is a trap. I won't fall for it.

My ideas are about 1500 years too late anyway:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations-medieval

I'm not sure how going beyond pure metaphysics has to entrap you in subjectivity. Pure metaphysics is pretty subjective itself in ways, considering.

Frankly, I happen to think that gay sex, incest, etc. exist because the Base Rule academically doesn't.

You mean to say that if everyone accepted the Base Rule, gay sex wouldn't take place? Why on Earth would I not sleep with the guy I'm in love with because "he and I are related subjects"?

Ok, but wouldn't you agree that "unconditional practical reason," is more about seriousness than it is about morality?

No, I wouldn't agree in the slightest.

Morality is about guiding action. Guiding action can take the form of practical reasoning. Now we think of moral rules as binding on all people everywhere, no matter what their specific interests or desires say to the contrary—in other words, not on condition of their having those specific interests or desires or, that is, unconditionally. Therefore, morality is about unconditional practical reason. QED

I'm not sure how going beyond pure metaphysics has to entrap you in subjectivity. Pure metaphysics is pretty subjective itself in ways, considering.

Every subject is in favor of or opposed to some other subject. The only way to be truly non-subjective is to talk about subjects as a whole. The way to do that is by subjects and relations. This is to me what metaphysics should be. Once you've polluted it with a subjective impurity then the meta is no longer meta it is mina or lesta.

You mean to say that if everyone accepted the Base Rule, gay sex wouldn't take place? Why on Earth would I not sleep with the guy I'm in love with because "he and I are related subjects"?

It's a cognitive and fashionable thing. For me, before I thought of this theory I had certain beliefs and certain questions. After I thought of this theory and before I thought of the Base Rule, I had other beliefs and other questions. After I thought of the Base Rule, my beliefs and questions changed again. All of that took much time of course. When I read about history I often wonder if it would have worked out that way if the medievals would have went through what I did. History is very painful to me.

Morality is about guiding action. Guiding action can take the form of practical reasoning. Now we think of moral rules as binding on all people everywhere, no matter what their specific interests or desires say to the contrary—in other words, not on condition of their having those specific interests or desires or, that is, unconditionally. Therefore, morality is about unconditional practical reason.

Well put. To further test this definition, how is this definition different from loyalty? In other words, what is the difference between moral duty and loyal duty?