Similarly, and more recently, GE Moore insisted in-kind that goodness was intelligible to intellect, and in a sense non natural, while distancing the entirety of the the british establishment from idealism, as a self described "infidel" who didn't believe in gods.

(January 23, 2019 at 9:22 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: In platonic moral realism moral facts and moral obligations are not distinct subjects.

Quote:So?  In reality, they are.  That's always the problem with idealism, huh..lol?

In reality they are. The ought, of that I ought to do what’s good, I ought not to do what’s immoral, doesn’t merely exists in my head, but out there, in objective reality as well. To doubt it’ existence, is like doubting the existence of other minds besides my own. Or that the cup in front of me, only exists in my mind.

You might deny this,  but I would view you as a solipsist in this regard.

Quote:

Quote:Not so much.  What you're discussing is deontological ethics.  

Quote:I’m still discussing within the concept of Plato's Form of the Good.

Quote:

Quote:Holocaust is morally wrong. I'm assuming you accept this as a moral fact?

I do, yeah.

Quote:Now explain why this is morally wrong, without reference to obligations, or oughts.

Harm.

Quote:Is it just a description of the negative societal impact of the holocaust? Or something akin to such explanations?

Could be, sure.  When we refer to negative societal impacts we're referring to conceptual harm..but it's sheer presence doesn't compel us to avoid it, and we may have good reason to do that harm (or to let it be done) - so..you can see, that no specific obligation presents itself at this point or level of scrutiny.  

Remember what we said awhile ago, that moral nihilism and moral realism can’t be both be true, because one is a negation of the other. 

Let's use harm.

Harm is morally wrong, this a moral fact. I ask what makes it morally wrong, you say “harm”. Do you see the tautology yet? Harm is morally wrong, because harm is harm. 

When I say harm is wrong, I don’t mean harm is harm. I mean we ought not harm. That we ought not harm is a moral fact. 

If my view,  is as you say false, that there is no such thing as the moral realty that I’m implying here, I would subscribe to moral nihilism. 

Now try and indicate why moral nihilism is false, in relationship to your supposed moral realism. I wouldn’t believe anything is intrinsically moral or immoral, that I have no moral obligations, or duties.

You claim this is false, the holocaust is wrong is a moral fact. It’s wrong because its harmful.

I say I acknowledge that’s it harmful, but I don’t see it as morally wrong or right. What is that labeling it as morally wrong saying that it’s harmful isn’t saying? If it’s not as you imply, that I ought not do it?

All you’re doing is attaching the label “moral” to things that are harmful, but it’s a hallow and empty attachment, that contributes no additional meaning, or facts to the statement x is harmful. Hence why your argument for moral realism fails, and my.  moral nihilism is true

---

(January 23, 2019 at 10:46 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(January 21, 2019 at 5:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: If Plato conception of The Good, constitutes as a God, than you can’t be an atheist and subscribe to Plato’s conception of the Good.

Ummmm, no. I've known quite a few professional philosophers (ie they have doctorates) who find Plato's theory of forms compelling and yet are thoroughly atheist. The form of the Good is goodness itself- full stop. Plato thought that goodness (all by itself) was intelligible to the intellect- full stop. If you accept these conclusions, then you are (at least somewhat) in agreement with Plato. No God belief whatsoever required.

But what if Plato did (in the back of his mind) think that the form of the Good was (in fact) some kind of God. It still doesn't matter. People who appreciate Plato's thinking are under no obligation to swallow his philosophy whole. I reserve the right to say that Plato was absolutely right about X, except for one particular idea concerning X, which is completely wrong.

I think if you're going to start pick and choosing what you want to retain in regards to Plato’s form of the Good, you’d have put some serious thought into how those parts relate, and whether the parts you like can be retained while rubbishing the parts you don’t.

Secondly if I’m using Plato’s conception of the Good pretty much in it’s entirety, and you mean some modified version of it, you should perhaps indicate which aspects you stripped from it, so it doesn’t appear as if we’re talking about the same thing.

I would argue, as Alsdair Macintrye has in After Virtue, what these atheists moral realists, and many others atheist moral philosophers suffer from, is a great of incoherency, because they haven’t carefully parsed out the teleological assumptions implicit in moral view like Platos, and their own. Morality absent of such assumptions, is incoherent, whether they realize it or not. Morality is a concept people hold very deeply and dearly, so that the fact that cognitive dissonance readily exists in attempts to reformulate it, shouldn’t be surprising. I would suggest Macintyre work, for a better understanding of what I am suggesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue

Quote:I think there is something compelling about the notion of "goodness itself"-- that goodness can be understood apart from this or that particular "good" thing. The whole point of the forms is that they are intelligible to the intellect but not the senses. They can be understood but not seen, heard, or felt. How is God intelligible to the intellect? Believers say (rightly) that it takes faith-- not thought -- to believe in God (read Paul's diatribes against philosophy some time). At the very least, belief in God is a matter of the heart and has little to do with intelligibility. Plato was concerned with something altogether different.

Let’s start by asking which parts of Plato Conceptions of the Good have you removed?

I’m assuming all the parts that lead others to conflate it with God, or the One? But let be clear as to what those parts are.

(January 23, 2019 at 11:57 am)Acrobat Wrote: In reality they are. 

The moral schema describes what is right, and what is wrong.  The deontological assertions refer to this schema and supply an additional evaluative premise.  

Moral schema is, deontology, ought.  Do you understand any of the examples I've already given you about the lack or presence of compulsion regardless of the presence of a moral system?  If there are two potential objects, and one can be present in the absence of the other..they are not the same thing. 

Quote:The ought, of that I ought to do what’s good, I ought not to do what’s immoral, doesn’t merely exists in my head, but out there, in objective reality as well. To doubt it’ existence, is like doubting the existence of other minds besides my own. Or that the cup in front of me, only exists in my mind.

Those are your evaluative premises.  That there is good is a fact*.  That you ought to do good is an assertion.  OFC assertions exist, and whether they exist in your head or "out there"...honestly there's no difference in this..since your head is also "out there".   

In any case, non deontological realism, like non-natural and natural realism.... exists.  We're not entirely sure that moral facts -could- place obligations on our actions..but in the meantime we know for a fact that -we- do.  

*a fact insomuch as we're accepting moral realism for convenience of discussion.

Quote:You might deny this,  but I’d see like I would a solipsist in this regard.

Rephrase? I've gotta confess, here, that I'm pretty sure this discussion is turning into a negative word association exercise for you.......

Quote:Remember what we said awhile ago, that moral nihilism and moral realism can’t be both be true, because one is a negation of the other. 

Let's use harm.

Harm is morally wrong, this a moral fact. I ask what makes it morally wrong, you say “harm”. Do you see the tautology yet? Harm is morally wrong, because harm is harm. 

When I say harm is wrong, I don’t mean harm is harm. I mean we ought not harm. That we ought not harm is a moral fact. 

Well, that's nice, but that's just what you mean to say..it's not a requirement of moral realism.  

Quote:If my view,  is as you say false, that there is no such thing as the moral realty that I’m implying here, I would subscribe to moral nihilism. 

That's unfortunate..you'd become a moral nihilist just because you were unclear on some obscure bit of ethical academia?  Are you sure you're not a moral nihilist already...lol?

Quote:Now try and indicate why moral nihilism is false, in relationship to your supposed moral realism. I wouldn’t believe anything is intrinsically moral or immoral, that I have no moral obligations, or duties.

Who says you don't have moral obligations or duties?  I'm completely certain that you do.  

Quote:You claim this is false, the holocaust is wrong is a moral fact. It’s wrong because its harmful.

Obviously as a general comment, yeah.  

Quote:I say I acknowledge that’s it harmful, but I don’t see it as morally wrong or right. What is that labeling it as morally wrong saying that it’s harmful isn’t saying? If it’s not as you imply, that I ought not do it?

The brilliant objection of you saying things..is that what you're looking for someone to overcome?  I say that eggplants are mammals.  Checkmate?

Quote:All you’re doing is attaching the label “moral” to things that are harmful, but it’s a hallow and empty attachment, that contributes no additional meaning, or facts to the statement x is harmful. Hence why your argument for moral realism fails, and my.  moral nihilism is true

Well, it's more likely that the label of "harmful" is attached to things we perceive as bad™.  This may account for why so many non harmful things are misapprehended as such due to preexisting moral beliefs...as well as why so many harmful things fly under that same radar of those same moral beliefs. That moral facts exist won't make us any better at working them out than we are with other facts...nor would we expect for people to live their lives in accordance to those facts any more than they live their lives according to others. Some facts, in life..are fairly easy to ignore..wouldn't you agree?

However, just running headlong into this one for you..so what if we were?  So what if what we meant by morally bad™ was harmful?  That would only strengthen the case of natural realism.  Why would that...make moral nihilism..true?

-Vulcan. Poor guy..he's trying to run some all or nothing gambit past you, lol?

Quote: In any case, non deontological realism, like non-natural and natural realism.... exists.  We're not entirely sure that moral facts -could- place obligations on our actions..but in the meantime we know for a fact that -we- do.  

“We” don’t. You don’t place any moral obligations on me, nor do I, nor does my culture and society. I don’t recognize any of these as a moral authority capable of placing such things on me.

At best what you have is what society wishes I do, not what I am obligated to do, and a hope that I make a non-binding promise to fulfill these wishes.

To say I have an obligation to not harm you, is like saying you have an obligation to pay off my school loans. I really really wish you did pay off my school loans, but my strong wish isn’t your obligation.

Perhaps there’s some group of you that’s made a non-binding promise with each other to do no harm, perhaps you can say those that made this non-binding promise, have a non-binding obligation to do not harm.

But how about for those of us who never made such a promise, are we unbound? Aren’t we free of the non-binding obligations you impose on yourself?

How about I make a deal, I’ll join your club, and make that non-binding promise to do no harm, as long you pay off my school loans? Do we have a deal.

The claim that you know for a fact that we impose moral obligations on others, is false.

In reality for most us, particularly since most of us are religious, the obligations are imposed on us by moral facts themselves, or the form of the good itself, or some sort of transcendent moral order, and not other people, or even ourselves.

We are born with such obligations, regardless if we rebel, or act against it, but it’s seen as a failure on our part.

Quote:That's unfortunate..you'd become a moral nihilist just because you were unclear on some obscure bit of ethical academia?  Are you sure you're not a moral nihilist already...lol?

No, it has nothing with clarity of your position. It’s just that what you claim exists doesn’t exist. Because there’s nothing intrinsically wrong or right. Perhaps you and you friends develop some moral framework, that outlines everything you feel is right, and everything you feel is wrong, like a moral code of conduct, and you go around getting the equivalent of signatures. I wouldn’t sign it. And even if I did it would be pretty meaningless, because i’m not bound to it anyways.

Why would I willfully choose to put the shackles of your morality upon myself, at the same time holding the key to untie those shackles? Why not just refuse the shackles? Accept the liberation and freedom from morality that moral nihilism offers, than the imagined slavery to you, or to your group, or humanity,

If I had to choose between the sickly secular humanistic morality many atheists sell, or the more liberating moral nihilism of Nietzsche I’d accept his all the way.

(January 23, 2019 at 1:48 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote: In any case, non deontological realism, like non-natural and natural realism.... exists.  We're not entirely sure that moral facts -could- place obligations on our actions..but in the meantime we know for a fact that -we- do.  

“We” don’t. You don’t place any moral obligations on me, nor do I, nor does my culture and society. I don’t recognize any of these as a moral authority capable of placing such things on me.

You don't have to recognize obligations to have them placed upon you.  Whether you reject the authority of the state or not..for example..has very little bearing on your obligation to follow its laws, lol.

I understand what you're trying to say..but you're just agreeing with me by way of attempted disagreement.  You have presented yourself as the arbiter of what obligations you do or don't have.  This is you..a person, placing obligations upon yourself (or removing them from yourself).  The sheer existence of those other schemas and authorities doesn;t compel or obligate you, in your estimation.

Quote:At best what you have is what society wishes I do, not what I am obligated to do, and a hope that I make a non-binding promise to fulfill these wishes.

We all have this, regardless of morality's ontological status.  

Quote:To say I have  an obligation to not harm you, is like saying you have an obligation to pay off my school loans. I really really wish you did pay off my school loans, but my strong wish isn’t your obligation.

To say you have an obligation not to harm me is the conclusion of an evaluative premise, not the moral fact from which this conclusion is derived...we've discussed this.  I actually don't think that you have any such blanket obligation..personally.

Quote:Perhaps there’s some group of you that’s made a non-binding promise with each other to do no harm, perhaps you can say those that made this non-binding promise, have a non-binding obligation to do not harm.

Okay?

Quote:But how about for those of us who never made such a promise, are we unbound? Aren’t we free of the non-binding obligations you impose on yourself?

IDK, are you...tell me more about how you set the boundaries of your own compulsions..rather than having them st for you by any real or purported moral fact?

Quote:How about I make a deal, I’ll join your club, and make that non-binding promise to do no harm, as long you pay off my school loans? Do we have a deal.

The claim that you know for a fact that we impose moral obligations on others, is false.

Not sure if trolling or just stupid? A massive chunk of human culture is the delineation and imposition of obligations.

Quote:In reality for most us, particularly since most of us are religious, the obligations are imposed on us by moral facts themselves, or the form of the good itself, or some sort of transcendent moral order, and not other people, or even ourselves.

We are born with such obligations, regardless if we rebel, or act against it, but it’s seen as a failure on our part.

You're using the term "moral fact" as a standin for your religion (they;re not actually the same thi9ng, but whatever...)..which was imposed upon you, by people.

Quote:No, it has nothing with clarity of your position.  It’s just that what you claim exists doesn’t exist. Because there’s nothing intrinsically wrong or right. Perhaps you and you friends develop some moral framework, that outlines everything you feel is right, and everything you feel is wrong, like a moral code of conduct, and you go around getting the equivalent of signatures. I wouldn’t sign it. And even if I did it would be pretty meaningless, because i’m not bound to it anyways.

So you are..already, a moral nihilist, then? Why would it matter if you signed a pledge to live by moral facts? It's not like signing a pledge would force you to do so either? Nor would it somehow bind you in a way that other expressions of consent don't. This is exactly what I've expressed to you..what you're arguing with, lol....?

Quote:Why would I willfully choose to put the shackles of your morality upon myself, at the same time holding the key to untie those shackles? Why not just refuse the shackles? Accept the liberation and freedom from morality that moral nihilism offers, than the imagined slavery to you, or to your group, or humanity,

I don't know. I can't speak to your specific motivations..you'd have to tell me? There are certainly people who just can;t be compelled, facts or no facts. We hit them over the head with bricks and put them in cages..shit like that.

Quote:If I had to choose between the sickly secular humanistic morality many atheists sell, or the more liberating moral nihilism of Nietzsche I’d accept his all the way.

So..more negative word association?

What is the "sickly secular humanistic morality" ...in your own words? The only thing that makes a morality a secular morality, is that it does not require deference to any nonsense about gods - it can still include them, ofc. The only thing that makes it humanistic..is that it is cheifly concerned with the acts and consequences of human lives and decisions. What else would a human morality or deontology concern?

Since moral realism concerns moral facts, not god facts...........any coherent realist morality will be conceptually secular by default. It's going to tip-toe at least right up to the line of humanism as well..for similar reasons. Ultimately, this is why secular moral realism is so well represented in academia. The contention that there are moral facts will invariably swirl to the conclusion that..by definition..if there are moral facts, they would -be- facts, regardless of whether some other fact (like a god fact)..was or was not a fact.

(January 23, 2019 at 2:08 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: You don't have to recognize obligations to have them placed upon you.  Whether you reject the authority of the state or not..for example..has very little bearing on your obligation to follow its laws, lol.

Let’s not equivocate between laws and morality now. In fact if a law was immoral, I would have an obligation to disobey it.

But like I said let’s not equivocate between legal obligations and moral obligations, because they are not one and the same thing. Telling me that’s illegal to steal is not the same as telling me it’s immoral to steal.

Quote:You have presented yourself as the arbiter of what obligations you do or don't have.  This is you..a person, placing obligations upon yourself (or removing them from yourself).  The sheer existence of those other schemas and authorities doesn;t compel or obligate you, in your estimation.

I don’t have any moral obligations to myself. Because such an obligations would be non-binding. I can poof them in and out of existence by my own will, as opposed to breaking them, that to call them moral obligations is pretty meaningless.

Quote:To say you have an obligation not to harm me is the conclusion of an evaluative premise, not the moral fact from which this conclusion is derived...we've discussed this.  I actually don't think that you have any such blanket obligation..personally.

No, these obligations are not a conclusion of an evaluative premise, the obligations precedes the evaluation. There’s no evaluation of a premise, that concludes with a moral obligation being imposed on me, that I didn’t have prior to that evaluation.

Quote:IDK, are you...tell me more about how you set the boundaries of your own compulsions..rather than having them st for you by any real or purported moral fact?

So are the boundaries set by the moral facts that exist independent of us, or are the set by “us”.? Earlier you claimed that moral facts don’t have aims, if that ’s the case then they can’t set boundaries. If boundaries are a human construct as you seemed to suggest earlier, than you can’t appeal to moral facts to set them.

Quote:You're using the term "moral fact" as a standin for your religion (they;re not actually the same thi9ng, but whatever...)..which was imposed upon you, by people.

No, I could rid myself of all my christian beliefs, and my views on morality still stand. My recognitions of moral oughts, or transcendent moral order, has been the case since I was a child, it seems self-evident, like the existence of minds outside my own, or the coffee cup in front of me. Religions may piggy back off of such basic perceptions, but are not the source of them.

Quote:So you are..already, a moral nihilist, then? Why would it matter if you signed a pledge to live by moral facts? It's not like signing a pledge would force you to do so either? Nor would it somehow bind you in a way that other expressions of consent don't. This is exactly what I've expressed to you..what you're arguing with, lol....?

I didn’t sign a pledge to live by moral facts. I was born to them, against my own volition. Captive to them as a slave to its master. They are not chains of my own making, but chains I’ve been bound in since creation. A part of being born in the image of God. I can’t poof it out of existence, anymore so than i can poof you out of existense, and this is not from a lack of trying, because hard as any man can try, he cannot not deny what is self-evident, without lies and delusions.

I may rebel against these obligations, against the very master itself, but I can not deny their existence. In greed I might steal your wallet, but I can’t deny that I ought not to have stolen it, my conscious laying witness to this very fact.

(January 23, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Acrobat Wrote: No, I could rid myself of all my christian beliefs, and my views on morality still stand.

-then your moral views are secular....and likely humanist. If you could hold them in the absence of your god beliefs then theres nothing about my being an atheist that would prevent me from holding the same.

Quote:So are the boundaries set by the moral facts that exist independent of us, or are the set by “us”.? Earlier you claimed that moral facts don’t have aims, if that ’s the case then they can’t set boundaries. If boundaries are a human construct as you seemed to suggest earlier, than you can’t appeal to moral facts to set them. 

Correct, because facts are things, not people.  They are descriptions of some reality, not intentional agents, lol. Facts don't have aims. What other than moral facts do you think a moral realist would or even coherently could refer to in order to establish their deontological boundaries? 

Quote:I didn’t sign a pledge to live by moral facts. I was born to them, against my own volition. Captive to them as a slave to its master. They are not chains of my own making, but chains I’ve been bound in since creation.  A part of being born in the image of God. I can’t poof it out of existence, anymore so than i can poof you out of existense, and this is not from a lack of trying, because hard as any man can try, he cannot not deny what is self-evident, without lies and delusions.

I may rebel against these obligations, against the very master itself, but I can not deny their existence. In greed I might steal your wallet, but I can’t deny that I ought not to have stolen it, my conscious laying witness to this very fact.

Gasp...you mean..you had obligations placed upon you?  You don't saaaaay........but..remember, you didn't actually need to say anything about god up above, because you would still have the same moral views even if you weren't born in the image of a god, even if there was no creation. Right? The strength of the truth of the one is uninformative as to the strength of the truth of the other, this is what you've indicated above.

Just a couple of gems that seemed worth pursuing. What we have, in you..is a secuilar moral realist telling us that they would rather choose moral nihilism than their own moral structure. Well..okay, but so what? What is that supposed to show us?

(January 23, 2019 at 4:23 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 23, 2019 at 4:05 pm)Acrobat Wrote: No, I could rid myself of all my christian beliefs, and my views on morality still stand.

-then your moral views are secular....and likely humanist. If you could hold them in the absence of your god beliefs then theres nothing about my being an atheist that would prevent me from holding the same.

No, I’d be a platonic theist. I’d be a theist that doesn’t subscribe to any particular religion.

Quote:

Quote:So are the boundaries set by the moral facts that exist independent of us, or are the set by “us”.? Earlier you claimed that moral facts don’t have aims, if that ’s the case then they can’t set boundaries. If boundaries are a human construct as you seemed to suggest earlier, than you can’t appeal to moral facts to set them. 

Correct, because facts are things, not people.  They are descriptions of some reality, not intentional agents, lol. Facts don't have aims. What other than moral facts do you think a moral realist would or even coherently could refer to in order to establish their deontological boundaries? 

What’s correct do “we” set the boundaries of what we ought to do and what we ought not do, or do the moral facts that exist independently of us set the boundaries?

If us, than the boundaries are relativistic, set by the communities and cultures who construct them.

If it’s the moral facts themselves, then this negates your previous claim that they don’t posses aims or oughts.

Quote:Gasp...you mean..you had obligations placed upon you?  You don't saaaaay........but..remember, you didn't actually need to say anything about god up above, because you would still have the same moral views even if you weren't born in the image of a god, even if there was no creation. Right? The strength of the truth of the one is uninformative as to the strength of the truth of the other, this is what you've indicated above.

No I wouldn’t have the same moral views if we weren’t born in the image of God or something equivalent to it. The world in which these beliefs are true is very different than one in which it isn’t. Its a world in which all is permissible, which ours is not.

Quote:Just a couple of gems that seemed worth pursuing. What we have, in you..is a secuilar moral realist telling us that they would rather choose moral nihilism than their own moral structure. Well..okay, but so what? What is that supposed to show us?

It wouldn’t really be a matter of choice, so much as it would just be matter of recognition that the moral structures you appeal to have no clothes, lack any real foundation, which can be flicked away by my fingers.

You and your friends telling me I have a moral obligation to do x, would be as laughable as you telling me I have an obligation to pay off your student loans. An unbound moral obligation, is the emperor with no clothes, geese trying to tame lions.

You and your ilk tend to rely on the structures of my moral beliefs, in order to even make yours even remotely work. Take those away, it’s just the lambs whining about the birds of prey.

(January 23, 2019 at 6:06 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 23, 2019 at 4:23 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: -then your moral views are secular....and likely humanist.  If you could hold them in the absence of your god beliefs then theres nothing about my being an atheist that would prevent me from holding the same.

No, I’d be a platonic theist. I’d be a theist that doesn’t subscribe to any particular religion.

IOW you made a misleading claim about your moral positions.  You would have to retain -some- of your christian beliefs, such as the belief in a god.  Well, that actually doesn't prevent your moral positions from being secular either...but I think that you're trying to walk this one back...so we'll go with the new line.  

Your moral positions would change if you didn't believe in gods.  Okay, and?  Mine are the same regardless.  That's part of why gods are irrelevant to my life in the way that they're relevant to yours.  You'd turn into a moral nihilist if you found out you were wrong about some god thing.  IDK how that's supposed to work..but it strongly suggests that your morality is based on purported god facts, not moral facts.  

Quote:What’s correct do “we” set the boundaries of what we ought to do and what we ought not do,

OFC we do. Look all around you, all of these people setting all of these boundaries.  It's completely ludicrous to even attempt to argue against this point?  

Quote:or do the moral facts that exist independently of us set the boundaries?

Moral facts are incapable of setting deontological borders, they just don't possess that ability any more than they possess the agency required to effect such a thing.  They're just true statements with a moral import.  

I'll only go over this one more time..and then I'll expect you to understand moving forward.  In order to derive an ought..a deontological border..from an is, a moral fact..at least one evaluative premise must be supplied.  This is  non negotiable.  This is the is-ought distinction.  We supply these premises.  We don't find them out there in the way that we find those moral facts to which we refer*.  This is why moore took to calling them "non natural" facts...he didn;t mean to imply what you likely think he did, more to distinguish them from what he considered to be empirical facts (the existence of your god, btw, would be just such an empirical fact, not a moral fact).

*again, assuming realism for the sake of convenience.

Quote:If us, than the boundaries are relativistic, set by the communities and cultures who construct them.

This doesn't follow.  

Quote:If it’s the moral facts themselves, then this negates your previous claim that they don’t posses aims or oughts.

See above.

Quote:No I wouldn’t have the same moral views if we weren’t born in the image of God or something equivalent to it. The world in which these beliefs are true is very different than one in which it isn’t. Its a world in which all is permissible, which ours is not.

You're not a moral realist.  You don't refer to moral facts, you refer to purported god facts.  I don't know why everything would be permissible just because fairies aren't watching you piss.  Can you explain to me why you think that would be so?  Obviously I don't..I think that moral facts are what they are regardless of what some god fact may be.   So, if theres no peeper god handing us his subjective rules of permissibility...then it doesn't matter a single iota to me or my realists morality..nor does it matter to me or my realists morality if there are.

There are assholes with permission lists in real life that don;t affect my moral appraisals....no need to invoke the tooth fairy, right?  

Quote:It wouldn’t really be a matter of choice, so much as it would just be matter of recognition that the moral structures you appeal to have no clothes, lack any real foundation, which can be flicked away by my fingers.

Obviously, if the moral structure that you appeal to is god fact based rather than moral fact based then the absence of a god would hollow out your moral system.  Since mine isn;t god fact based...it won;t have that effect on me.  

Quote:You and your friends telling me I have a moral obligation to do x, would be as laughable as you telling me I have an obligation to pay off your student loans. An unbound moral obligation, is the emperor with no clothes, geese trying to tame lions.

Like I said, some people can't be compelled.  We have bricks and cages for people like that...and it sounds like you'd need one..if you ever lost your faith.

Quote:You and your ilk tend to rely on the structures of my moral beliefs, in order to even make yours even remotely work. Take those away, it’s just the lambs whining about the birds of prey.

Why do you think my morality has anything to do with your belief in fairies?

You realize that you're starting to come off the rails..right?

(January 23, 2019 at 12:25 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: -Vulcan.  Poor guy..he's trying to run some all or nothing gambit past you, lol?

Lol. I don't quite know what to make of our new friend. He seems to fundamentally misunderstand philosophy itself. I guess I'll have to break out the crayolas. It's kindergarten time!

(January 23, 2019 at 11:57 am)Acrobat Wrote: I think if you're going to start pick and choosing what you want to retain in regards to Plato’s form of the Good, you’d have put some serious thought into how those parts relate, and whether the parts you like can be retained while rubbishing the parts you don’t.

Let's take a moment to examine Thales, the first great philosopher in the Greek tradition. Thales famously postulated that “everything is water.” This is, of course, absurd and incorrect. However, in my opinion, Thales is nonetheless rightly revered as a hero of Western philosophy. Why?

You see, his idea concerning water was a first step toward demystifying the truth. It was an attempt to see nature in terms of processes and properties rather than merely the whims of the gods. He predicted a solar eclipse. It takes a careful observation of nature to pull something like that off.  Keep Thales in mind as we proceed. And also keep in mind that he did some valuable philosophical work and got us closer to understanding the essence of matter, despite how wrong he was. Comprehending how a philosopher’s incorrect idea can positively influence intellectual progress is essential to a proper understanding of Plato’s important contributions to philosophy.

Let’s fast forward to Socrates. Socrates' chief motto, according to Plato, was “the only thing I know is that I know nothing.” This is a remarkably wise statement; it is at the very core of all philosophy, whether one is speaking of Platonic forms or Kantian ethics. And it’s essential to understanding what Plato was trying to accomplish by proposing any theory (like the theory of forms).

I’m not sure if you have actually read and appreciated Plato or if you are simply reading snippets of wiki articles and talking out of your ass. The latter seems to be the case because I usually connect with people who genuinely love Plato... even Christians. I find myself wondering if you have even a rudimentary grasp of Plato. Regardless, you may find the following excerpt from the Symposium relevant, if not beautiful:
 

Plato Wrote:Isn't it obvious by now, Socrates, that those who love wisdom are not wise nor ignorant but the ones in between, like Love himself. In addition, the young god Love loves wisdom because wisdom and knowledge are the most beautiful things we know of, and Love is always drawn to beauty. It follows that love must be a lover of wisdom and that all lovers of wisdom, that is, philosophers, like Love himself, are somewhere in between total ignorance and complete omniscience. 

(204 b-c)

Philosophy isn't about knowing things. Nor is it about influencing others' beliefs. It is about getting from ignorance to knowledge. It is a process by which one may travel from misunderstanding to clarity. But one of the key pitfalls is the notion that truth is "this or that particular thing." Truth isn't that simple.

Some say "if you believe my Bible, you will thereafter know the truth..." But this isn't the truth according to Plato. The truth doesn't come in "pellet form"... like... once you swallow that pellet you have a genuine understanding. No. It doesn't work like that.

What was Plato saying with the allegory of the cave? He was saying this: what most people take to be "the truth" is simply a distortion. An easy distortion. It takes effort to apprehend reality. It takes effort to turn away from illusion. It involves difficultly.

Not everyone is cut out for that shit. Most are just willing to go with "whatever Pastor Brown says is true." I mean, shit, they just got off work and they're on their way to a barbeque. They're trying to eat some ribs and have a good time. Monday, they gotta go back to work. And somewhere in there, raise their kids properly. Get their taxes paid... maybe have an affair. Most people are far more inclined to embrace the truth "that works" than the truth which accurately portrays reality. But Plato was not "most people." Nor did he give any kind of a fuck what "most people" are inclined to believe. He sought the truth.

(January 23, 2019 at 11:57 am)Acrobat Wrote: Let’s start by asking which parts of Plato Conceptions of the Good have you removed?

Well, for one, in Meno, Plato (seemingly) hypothesizes that when we come to understand a particular a priori truth, such as a mathematical concept, that we actually "remember" this from a previous life. I reject this idea. Also, I see no reason to accept any doctrine of reincarnation, Platonic or otherwise. But it is quite possible that Plato himself didn't accept any particular doctrine of reincarnation. After all, the myth of Err (in Book X of the Republic) describes a sort of reincarnation wherein souls travel between Hades and Earth, Earth and Heaven, and Heaven and Hades. But in Phaedrus, Plato describes the soul as a flying chariot that descends to earth periodically due to the inclinations of one of its horses (desire). Afterwards, it ascends back to the heavenly domain in which the forms are beheld but invariably is pulled back down to earth due to the soul's desirous portion.

I reject both of these "doctrines" of reincarnation. I don't think either describes how the soul beholds the forms. For one thing, the two doctrines contradict one another. Therefore, I suspect, as do many scholars, that Plato's "theories" of reincarnation are (in fact) allegories. They aren't meant to be taken literally.

Back to the forms. Let's look at Aristotle for a second: Aristotle accepted the basic notion that there was an immaterial nature (or form) that accompanied matter. Thus form and matter (together) comprised an object's complete essence. This is something that (at its root) Plato accepts, but he takes his vision further. The forms, Plato says, are what is fundamental. Material reality (ie matter) merely "partakes" in a particular form. The thing itself is fundamental. Matter is simply a rough copy of these essential ideas. For instance, a perfect circle is intelligible to the intellect. One who is skilled in geometry understands the properties of a perfect circle. But no such thing as a perfect circle exists in the material world. However! Every circle found in material form has some of the properties of an "ideal circle." Certain mathematical truths that apply to all circles  apply to it. Any circle you draw on a piece of paper "partakes in the form" of a circle.

Same thing applies to morality. A "good deed" partakes in the form of the Good. Just like you can never draw a perfect circle, you can never live a perfect life. But if you ever set out to draw a perfect circle, there exists an ideal circle (which is only intelligible to the intellect) which your drawing of a circle uses as a standard. Likewise, a good life or a good deed refers to an ideal life or an ideal deed which it tries to approximate but will never fully achieve. This is what I accept concerning Plato's theory of forms. One thing I reject is Plato's hypothesis that we "recall" forms from exposure to them in a previous life.

Does that answer your question?