<p>Russian gentleman: So who is to say what is moral?
Sonja: Morality is subjective.
Russian gentleman: Subjectivity is objective.
Sonja: Moral notions imply attributes to substances which exist only in relational duality.
Russian gentleman: Not as an essential extension of ontological existence.
Sonja: Can we not talk about sex so much?
~Love and Death</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>Hm, so what’s to explain the logical transition to sex? Also, “exist only in relational duality” implies that moral notions imply attributes to substances that exist only in 1-1 relationships with each other like person to person, right? And how does it follow from “subjectivity is objective”</p>
<p>as for the “not as an essential extension of ontological existence,” the moral attributes are not the essential extension of ontological existence. ." Well, Sonja is trying to argue for a sort of relativism, the gentleman objectivism. So subjectivity is not an essential extension of ontological existence => that is, subjectively is part of ontological existence, and then Sonja gets pwned and tries to make her escape. Please, by all means, correct my logic if I’m wrong.</p>