I Miss This Guy!

[Liberty]

Who are you to say I have blind faith in gold? Why don't you spend more time learning about the history of your civilization and the importance gold played in it before making such stupid accusations. I have spent decades learning about gold and central banking and the knowledge I share with you and others is based on the wealth of knowledge that I have accumulated.  Read Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises spend a little time doing it and see if you feel any different.

 

In this case, I didn't mean "blind faith" as "just a wild ass guess", but rather because gold doesn't produce anything, you kind of have to hope that someone else will buy it at a higher price later. So you need to have faith that it will act in the way you think it will act based on past performance (and even that is a mixed bag, as the correlation isn't always obvious). With a productive asset, you can look at what it produces and know that this will come out of it over time and estimate the value of that. You know apple will produce iphones this year, but 1oz of gold at the end of the year will be exactly the same as at the beginning of the year, so it's more a leap of faith if you are to consider it as an investment or even a store of value. As I said, I think it will probably work as expected, but I certainly can't be sure of that... (not that we can be so sure about fiat money either, which complicates things). But right now I feel more sure about quality businesses than either of those, so that's where I invest.

 

As for Rothbard and Mises, I've read some of both (and others). I actually have the three volume edition of Mises' Human Action and Jörg Guido Hülsmann's biography of Mises. I've read a lot of the pro-gold books (Michael Maloney, etc) to see the arguments first hand. I've even listened to a bunch of King World News and Sprott Global podcasts with Sprott and Rick Rule and all the regular guests, the GATA stuff, London trader, etc. I've done the research. Don't assume that I'm not entirely convinced like you out of ignorance.

[moore_capital54]

An intelligent selection of productive businesses either directly or passively (securities) should outperform the price of gold bullion over time. Unfortunately if you have significant liquidity and keep it in cash or treasuries you will underperform gold. What you want is leverage to the gold price and the best way to achieve that is through the securities of businesses that are positively exposed to a rising gold price environment: Think Franco Nevada or Silver Wheaton (for silver).

 

Indeed, that's my conclusion too. I actually own shares in a business that sells picks & shovels (so to speak) to the mining industry and should do very well if precious metals (as well as base metals and other commodities) do well. I've also got a bunch of precious metal royalty/streaming companies on my watchlist, including those you mentioned, though I haven't bought any (I prefer other things, and they're harder to value than that service company I bought).

 

Since I don't ever hold that much cash for very long (that's a weakness of mine, I like to be almost fully invested when things I like get cheap enough), I don't fear the devaluation of my cash too much and feel that most of what I own should have decent to good pricing power in inflationary environments.

 

At some point I considered getting some silver bullion, but I ended up buying more shares of a business I liked instead. We'll see if that was a good decision over time..

 

I agree with everything you say here but remember that gold is idiot proof, whereas you have to be right about your selection of securities. With that being said at your age you should be heavily weighted towards equities anyways making gold a less attractive option.

 

Remember gold only makes sense as an alternative to money when we are in a negative real interest rate environment. Since gold has been freely floating (since 1971) there has never been a period where one would have lost money holding gold instead of fiat money as long as real interest rates were negative. Many idiots like to point to 1980-1985 or 1987-1991 when gold declined by 50% and 30% respectively but forget that in those periods real interest rates were 5-12% and so any monetary gold investor was actually buying treasuries and money funds. With that said gold prices were still up over 200% from the 1970's.

 

Right now real interest rates are not only negative our central banks are printing money at a pace never been seen while fiscal policies continue to be geared towards more entitlements banking on even more central bank monetisation as debt levels exceed levels which are sustainable based on the arithmetic. This all bodes very well for gold.

[moore_capital54]

Don't get me wrong, science has done a fantastic job at teaching us almost everything there is to know about the physical mechanics of our existence (very good maps of how everything in the mall works) but has been extremely arrogant at assuming that this tiny little piece of the existence puzzle means they know with certainty that a higher being does not exist.

 

This is a bizarre thing to say....  I'm pretty sure that science has never claimed certainty that a higher being doesn't exist.  Science doesn't claim anything with certainty.  It's ok, you probably just don't understand what science is.  Here's a primer to help you get up to speed:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

I am pretty sure I had a 10 minute conversation with Leonard Mlodinow at a conference where he told me that God was unnecessary due to his research...

[Liberty]

I am pretty sure I had a 10 minute conversation with Leonard Mlodinow at a conference where he told me that God was unnecessary due to his research...

 

The key word here is "unnecessary". That's not the same as claiming to have proven a negative. It just means that the models of reality work just fine without having to postulate for a god.

 

Like occam's razor. It says that if you have two explanations for something, ceteris paribus the simplest one is probably true. In other words, you should remove unnecessary complexity and go with the simpler (thus more probable) explanation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

 

For example, imagine we found a computer microprocessor from an alien species and had no idea how it worked. There's a group that studies it in detail and comes up with hypotheses about how it works, and then it tests them and sees if they were right or wrong. Over time, after many experiments they accumulate lots of knowledge about the alien CPU and they know how it works. Then there's a second group that says: "yeah, it works just like how the first group says, except that it also works using undetectable magic". Occam's razor would slice off the magic because it is unnecessary. The first explanation was sufficient in itself to explain the observed data, the magic was superfluous, or unnecessary.

 

Another way to understand this is via the conjunction fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

[Rabbitisrich]

I am pretty sure I had a 10 minute conversation with Leonard Mlodinow at a conference where he told me that God was unnecessary due to his research...

 

The key word here is "unnecessary". That's not the same as claiming to have proven a negative. It just means that the models of reality work just fine without having to postulate for a god.

 

 

 

This is worth emphasizing because the same miscommunications about logical reasoning keep reappearing throughout the thread.

[moore_capital54]

I am pretty sure I had a 10 minute conversation with Leonard Mlodinow at a conference where he told me that God was unnecessary due to his research...

 

The key word here is "unnecessary". That's not the same as claiming to have proven a negative. It just means that the models of reality work just fine without having to postulate for a god.

 

Like occam's razor. It says that if you have two explanations for something, ceteris paribus the simplest one is probably true. In other words, you should remove unnecessary complexity and go with the simpler (thus more probable) explanation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

 

For example, imagine we found a computer microprocessor from an alien species and had no idea how it worked. There's a group that studies it in detail and comes up with hypotheses about how it works, and then it tests them and sees if they were right or wrong. Over time, after many experiments they accumulate lots of knowledge about the alien CPU and they know how it works. Then there's a second group that says: "yeah, it works just like how the first group says, except that it also works using undetectable magic". Occam's razor would slice off the magic because it is unnecessary. The first explanation was sufficient in itself to explain the observed data, the magic was superfluous, or unnecessary.

 

Another way to understand this is via the conjunction fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

 

So reverse engineering our material existence allows scientists to be arrogant enough to say something they have made absolutely no progress disputing is unnecessary. Ok I get it now..

[moore_capital54]

I am pretty sure I had a 10 minute conversation with Leonard Mlodinow at a conference where he told me that God was unnecessary due to his research...

 

The key word here is "unnecessary". That's not the same as claiming to have proven a negative. It just means that the models of reality work just fine without having to postulate for a god.

 

 

 

This is worth emphasizing because the same miscommunications about logical reasoning keep reappearing throughout the thread.

 

Sorry but saying that god is unnecessary is extremely arrogant for someone who simply built a model which essentially reverse engineers an existence without reconciling that existence. I would be more impressed if the academics were more humble and admitted that their research confirms how little we know about our existence.

[RichardGibbons]

So reverse engineering our material existence allows scientists to be arrogant enough to say something they have made absolutely no progress disputing is unnecessary. Ok I get it now..

 

I kind of think you don't get it if you think that your statement is some sort of refutation of what Liberty said. 

 

Also, there's no arrogance in saying something is unnecessary.  Is it arrogant for me to say it's unnecessary for me to wear a pig on my head to survive?  It's just unnecessary, no more and no less.  I'm not saying that I won't wear a pig on my head, nor that the pig will probably get annoyed and squeal and kick at me.  I'm not even saying that I'm not wearing a pig on my head now.  But wearing that pig is unnecessary.

 

I would be more impressed if the academics were more humble and admitted that their research confirms how little we know about our existence.

 

They do.  I think there's very few academics who would claim that they have proof of the absence of a a god.  All they're claiming is that they have hypotheses that in combination suggest that a universe without a god is possible.

 

That said, if you want to pretend otherwise because it doesn't fit your world views and ideas of what science is, that fine.  Just don't be surprised when people don't take your argument seriously.  (That might seem arrogant, but it isn't really.  If you know calculus, is it arrogant to point out a math error of someone who, when they add 14 and 17, always gets 21?)

 

[enoch01]

 

Yes I think this is the right way to think about it.  If there is no God, morality amounts to nothing more than social instincts, personal preference, biological influence, and the like.  There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong - it's all a matter of perspective.

 

Even with God, the same would hold. God would simply overlay an additional punishment/reward scheme.  You would still rely on social instincts, personal preference, et. al.

 

I'm not entirely sure what that second sentence means, but it doesn't seem like you disagreed with anything I said.  Maybe you are just emphasizing the second half of the conditional?

 

Not at all. The existence/non-existence of a god has little to do with your interaction with "morality". You currently have a body, which experiences the world in a certain way. Now God exists. So what? What, specifically, are the factors that now make morality intrinsically anything?

I don't know all of the factors, but here's one: God is a Necessary Being.  So (i) if He is the individual paradigm of what is right, or (ii) if He is the knower of what is right, those moral truths are invariable.

 

To clarify, let's say that God exists. Now let's say that aliens exist. There must be something unique about the existence of God that makes morality intrinsically right and wrong.  Or perhaps the problem is with identifying what you mean by "intrinsically" right and wrong. Again, you have a body (and a soul? It doesn't make much difference), so you have constraints in your interaction with the universe.

 

1. What is the contribution of God's existence to intrinsic morality?

Like I said, here's one property that contributes: the fact that He is a Necessary Being.

2. What effect on your tools (body, mind, soul(?)) clarifies "intrinsic" vs. subjective morality?

You mean what clarifies for me whether morality is subjective or not?  Lots of things: thinking about it for a while, discussing it with others, maybe my biology informs it (ie maybe we are hard-wired to think that), etc.

 

Thanks again for all this, but you still aren't denying my original conditional.  Now I'm wondering - did you not intend to do so?

[racemize]

Well, when I get older, I hope to be humble and remain open minded or at least not verbally abusive.

[writser]

Discussions about religion on internet forums are useless. Nobody here wants to be converted to the other side. All you end up doing is nitpicking at some specific details in each others' sentences and this can go on forever.  At some point the atheists start about AIDS in South Africa, child abuse in the church,  crusades and they will quote atrocious stuff from the bible like:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.

The believers will reply: morality does not exist without a god. Don't take the bible literally. I feel that God exists.  Hitler was an atheist. We pity you because you will burn in hell. At some point one of the sides will get tired of posting. The other side will proclaim victory until a new forum member decides to join the discussiony. Rinse and repeat.

 

I would rather focus on investing instead.

[rkbabang]

I can think of a very good analogy between some of the posters understanding of gold and religion.

 

The posters focusing on disputing religion and a higher being as hogwash with so much energy and enthusiasm are the same ones that do not have the ability to think outside of the constraints of the centrally planned economy. A belief in gold is simply the belief that what has functioned as money since the beginning of time will continue to provide its owner with the preservation of purchasing power without having to rely on politically motivated human beings who seek to manipulate the value of money for the electorate.

 

The same feelings that drive some of you to not want to believe in a world where gold is necessary drive you to believe in a world where there is no higher being.  Everything can be explained by science! Gold is irrelevant as long as I buy shares in Fairfax! It is merely a lack of life experience as well as historical context that fuels such behavior.

 

Moore, I think that (and some other things people have been writing) are a bit of a stretch.  I'm a huge fan of Rothbard and Mises.  I'm a fan of gold and have about 5% of my portfolio in gold just in case the excrement hits the fan.  Not only do I think government isn't necessary for a civilized society based on free-trade, but I don't think it has a moral right to exist at all.  Anyone who believes that they have a moral right to initiate force to solve social problems is not a moral human being.  I'm 40 years old.  All this and I don't believe in any of the 10,000+ gods that have been worshiped by humanity over the years, not even whichever one(s) you believe in.  In fact I would think a belief in intelligent design would make a person more likely to not understand free-market capitalism.  "How can anything work if there is no state directing and controlling everything?  Why, it'd be chaos!"  God is socialism writ large.

[rkbabang]

Sorry but saying that god is unnecessary is extremely arrogant for someone who simply built a model which essentially reverse engineers an existence without reconciling that existence. I would be more impressed if the academics were more humble and admitted that their research confirms how little we know about our existence.

 

In my opinion it is the non-beleivers who understand how little we really know and are humbled by it.  It is the believers who think they have all the answers and understand the universe and arrogantly refuse to admit that they really don't know.  Because to a believer they think they DO know where the universe came from and even more arrogantly they think they understand not only what created the universe, but why.  It is the height of arrogance to think that you KNOW that a supreme being exists and that you KNOW what he wants.  You don't know, because no one does.  How is it that when we tell people to stop claiming to know things they don't know, that we are suddenly the arrogant ones? 

 

This would be like if a scientist claimed to know exactly how many inhabited worlds there were in the entire universe. Other scientists would tell him that he needs to show his evidence or stop claiming to know things he doesn't know, and when he refuses to show his evidence they would dismiss him.  They are not being arrogant for dismissing him, he is being arrogant for not proving his claim, yet claiming to know that it is true.  If he was like some on this thread he was then turn around and say "You arrogant bastards.  You can't prove me wrong, can you? "  When all the time it is he who is the arrogant one who lacks humility.

[ERICOPOLY]

I bet if we did a poll the non believers are 40 or younger (the majority) while the believers are 40 or above.

...

you are originally an Aussie? Please clarify this fact for me as I think that would explain a lot..

 

I will be near 40 next April so I can relate to what Moore is saying.

 

Here is the deal. 

 

1)  Early in life I wanted to be close to my parents, ask them all the questions I could and absorb all of his answers.  I wanted to take their knowledge and just download it. 

2)  Then some hormones kicked in as I approached my teens and I started to want to be apart from him, and seek out a life of my own.  My feathers were growing in and I wanted to fly the nest and find a mate.  I stopped asking them questions and went out to find my own answers.

3)  These hormones that took me from the nest sustained me for a good long while.

4)  As I approach 40 I believe that these hormones are starting to lose their power because I find myself wanting to reconnect with my parents and we get along more harmoniously now -- more so than at any time since before I was a teenager.

 

Yet I am growing more convinced as I approach 40 that religion is a social gathering media and nothing more than that.

 

Here's the connection:

 

My parents are atheists (since birth) and their parents are atheists (since birth)... it might go back farther than that even but I haven't bothered to ask.

 

I am willing to bet that if I had differnet parents who instead had taught me religion, then I might have questioned and possibly rejected those views as a young man and later come back to those views when the nest-leaving hormones wore off.

 

So my prediction is that Moore was raised with religion, and misattributes his return to theism for acquired wisdom.  Given that this country is loaded with Christians, it doesn't surprise me that most atheists he's known have also come back to religion as they too have approached 40 (the hormones wore off).

 

Dual citizen Aussie (by descent) /US (born and raised)... check.  Actually soon it will be tri-citizen (UK).  My father was born in London and I can get citizenship by descent if I just apply (I'm in the process of doing that but it will take a few months). 

 

Being an Aussie does alter my views on things -- like you can take off your clothes at the beach without getting arrested.

 

 

[Liberty]

Hitler was an atheist.

 

Not that it matters one iota because history has shown that people with all kinds of metaphysical beliefs can do evil things (though through most of history that was religious people because most people were religious, and because religion was a great justification to dehumanize and kill the "infidels" on the other side or to de-responsabilize yourself by saying "let's do it because god told me to" or "god is on our side"), but:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

 

He even made speeches against atheism:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Statements_against_atheism

[ERICOPOLY]

Well, when I get older, I hope to be humble and remain open minded or at least not verbally abusive.

 

There was a conversation a while back that Moore tried to settle with Santayana by proclaiming that he "swung a bigger line in the markets".

 

Look, if my soul is on the line here as an atheist then I'm swinging a bigger line in this market.

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

So, I would assume that, in reality, there is not much difference in good and evil between Buffett and Madoff for you then?

 

No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit.

 

Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man.

 

But overall, in the grand scheme of things, there is no difference, right? If we remove our own biases, they are both equally good and/or/nor bad? They are relative and there is nothing absolute about them?

 

Eric, I'm still waiting for your response here. Honestly, I really value your opinion and I'd like to know if what I'm assuming is true for you.

 

I may not be able to answer.  It's reductio ad absurdem, yet you may not be incorrect.  It's a bit like that common question about whether the sound of a tree falling exists without somebody around to experience it.

 

Perhaps my social nature is preventing me from seeing anything without a measure of social value ascribed to it.

[writser]

@Liberty: I know, I'm an atheist as well. The point was: why bother ;)

[Liberty]

@Liberty: I know, I'm an atheist as well. The point was: why bother ;)

 

You ask why, I ask why not? :)

 

Most times I don't feel it's worth it and would agree with you, but on this board I feel like people are civil and smart enough that some interesting things can come out of such a discussion. But I mostly just like to set the record straight when it comes to erroneous scientific claims, though that often gets dragged into more metaphysical stuff, which I find less interesting. Oh well. I think these threads are rare enough here that they are easy to ignore by people who aren't interested. I certainly am not pushing for more of these off-topic discussions, but I guess once in a long while isn't too terrible.

[Liberty]

So, I would assume that, in reality, there is not much difference in good and evil between Buffett and Madoff for you then?

 

No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit.

 

Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man.

 

But overall, in the grand scheme of things, there is no difference, right? If we remove our own biases, they are both equally good and/or/nor bad? They are relative and there is nothing absolute about them?

 

Eric, I'm still waiting for your response here. Honestly, I really value your opinion and I'd like to know if what I'm assuming is true for you.

 

I may not be able to answer.  It's reductio ad absurdem, yet you may not be incorrect.  It's a bit like that common question about whether the sound of a tree falling exists without somebody around to experience it.

 

Perhaps my social nature is preventing me from seeing anything without a measure of social value ascribed to it.

 

Ethics and morals are a whole other discussion which I don't want to get into, but if either of you is interested, this is a good start:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarism

[Green King]

This talk about stuff reminds me of this book

 

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycle-Maintenance-Inquiry/dp/0553277472

 

Its not directly related but if you think about it is related on another level.

[Rabbitisrich]

 

Yes I think this is the right way to think about it.  If there is no God, morality amounts to nothing more than social instincts, personal preference, biological influence, and the like.  There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong - it's all a matter of perspective.

 

Even with God, the same would hold. God would simply overlay an additional punishment/reward scheme.  You would still rely on social instincts, personal preference, et. al.

 

I'm not entirely sure what that second sentence means, but it doesn't seem like you disagreed with anything I said.  Maybe you are just emphasizing the second half of the conditional?

 

Not at all. The existence/non-existence of a god has little to do with your interaction with "morality". You currently have a body, which experiences the world in a certain way. Now God exists. So what? What, specifically, are the factors that now make morality intrinsically anything?

I don't know all of the factors, but here's one: God is a Necessary Being.  So (i) if He is the individual paradigm of what is right, or (ii) if He is the knower of what is right, those moral truths are invariable.

 

To clarify, let's say that God exists. Now let's say that aliens exist. There must be something unique about the existence of God that makes morality intrinsically right and wrong.  Or perhaps the problem is with identifying what you mean by "intrinsically" right and wrong. Again, you have a body (and a soul? It doesn't make much difference), so you have constraints in your interaction with the universe.

 

1. What is the contribution of God's existence to intrinsic morality?

Like I said, here's one property that contributes: the fact that He is a Necessary Being.

2. What effect on your tools (body, mind, soul(?)) clarifies "intrinsic" vs. subjective morality?

You mean what clarifies for me whether morality is subjective or not?  Lots of things: thinking about it for a while, discussing it with others, maybe my biology informs it (ie maybe we are hard-wired to think that), etc.

 

Thanks again for all this, but you still aren't denying my original conditional.  Now I'm wondering - did you not intend to do so?

 

I thought that I did respond, but there is still a miscommunication. Even if we hold the Necessary Being proposition to be true, it still contributes nothing to the "intrinsic" nature of morality. It simply supplies a tautology: God is a necessary being, and his knowing of right is by definition right.

 

Let's agree to agree with the tautology. Why do we agree? You are still weighting that information with the tools you have. Your acceptance or rejection of the proposition is dependent upon the relative weights of various sensations that you experience when you consider it. To see why this remains a subjective experience, imagine that something is lost in translation between God's moral proclamations and your understanding. You are fully convinced that you are working in God's name, and, due to the misunderstanding, don't realize that you are doing something "immoral". What next? What happens that identifies the objective nature of morality, in the way that we identify objective nature in other matters?

[Rabbitisrich]

 

 

But overall, in the grand scheme of things, there is no difference, right? If we remove our own biases, they are both equally good and/or/nor bad? They are relative and there is nothing absolute about them?

 

Eric, I'm still waiting for your response here. Honestly, I really value your opinion and I'd like to know if what I'm assuming is true for you.

 

 

Sorry to hijack your question to Eric, but this question is something Enoch1 brings up and I have trouble understanding the perspective. What exactly do you mean by "absolute"? Is there a non-tautological identification for absolute good or bad? What does a morality independent of human preferences look like?

[enoch01]

I thought that I did respond, but there is still a miscommunication. Even if we hold the Necessary Being proposition to be true, it still contributes nothing to the "intrinsic" nature of morality.

 

So I provided two conditions, which, when either of them are conjoined with the property of Necessary Being, contributes to intrinsic morality (ie, the concept that there are necessarily true moral propositions).  Maybe there are other conditions as well, but I'll claim ignorance for now:

 

"(i) if He is the individual paradigm of what is right"

 

So if (i) is true, then pretty obviously God contributes, because He is the source, or the model, of what is right.  I don't think you addressed (i).

 

"(ii) if He is the knower of what is right"

 

Now suppose He merely knows what is right.  Then we are left with choosing between some Platonic forms for what is right, or considering what is right as concepts (and maybe there are other options, again I claim ignorance for now).  I would argue against Platonic forms, and consider what is right as concepts, which cannot exist apart from a mind.  Therefore, God contributes to their existence.

 

So that's a model of how, if we suppose God exists, He could contribute to intrinsic morality.  Maybe there are other models.

 

It simply supplies a tautology: God is a necessary being, and his knowing of right is by definition right.  Let's agree to agree with the tautology.

 

I agree, but I think you are only addressing (ii) here.

 

Why do we agree? You are still weighting that information with the tools you have. Your acceptance or rejection of the proposition is dependent upon the relative weights of various sensations that you experience when you consider it. To see why this remains a subjective experience, imagine that something is lost in translation between God's moral proclamations and your understanding. You are fully convinced that you are working in God's name, and, due to the misunderstanding, don't realize that you are doing something "immoral".  What next? What happens that identifies the objective nature of morality, in the way that we identify objective nature in other matters?

 

Well first, "experiences" are subjective by definition: you may be reflecting on a belief, I may be having a pain, etc.  There are no experiences without subjects.  I've also never disagreed that an acceptance or rejection of a proposition is a subjective experience.  But that is consistent with a proposition being necessarily true or not.

 

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are getting at here.  Someone could be argued out of a particular belief, etc.  Again, that is all consistent with there being necessarily true moral propositions.

[Rabbitisrich]

Perhaps a better way to phrase my view is to figure out how Proposition I is not simply tautological. Let's agree with both propositions. Now what? What is the non-tautological distinction between the God paradigm and the subjective paradigm that makes the former objective? For example, you do something immoral in both paradigms. What's the non-tautological difference?