Not at all, which is why I've been trying to familiarize you with moral realism.  


To a non natural realist, the badness of the thing is directly apprehended by the intellect.  It's a non empirical fact which is only coincidentally informed by the empirical facts of the matter (say, harm).  A property that some object has, that many otherwise disparate objects -can- have. 

To a natural realist, the badness of the thing is shorthand for observing a grab bag of empirical properties.  Harm is used illustratively as an umbrella term for these...but it can get needlingly specific depending on which variant of natural realism one refers to.  

So, on the one hand, it's not actually true that a moral fact is an evaluative premise or proposition on it's face..but, if it were..that poses no more difficulty than certifying any other list of empirical premises or propositions.

Do you find that objection difficult to handle in your own divine morality, and how do you address it?

(January 24, 2019 at 10:41 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 24, 2019 at 10:32 am)Acrobat Wrote: Well here’s your problem.

The holocaust is morally bad/wrong is an evaluative proposition, by definition.

It involves a value  judgement, “bad”, and is therefore an evaluative proposition.

Sorry but by arguing "Without God, humans cant be good" is just a gap answer. I don't need a sky wizard to know that Hitler was evil and genocide is wrong.

Out of curiosity, did you do a lot of drugs when you were younger Brian?

(January 24, 2019 at 10:52 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 24, 2019 at 10:41 am)Brian37 Wrote: Sorry but by arguing "Without God, humans cant be good" is just a gap answer. I don't need a sky wizard to know that Hitler was evil and genocide is wrong.

Out of curiosity, did you do a lot of drugs when you were younger Brian?

What does that have to do with shit? There are plenty of theists who still hold their beliefs in God and are addicts.

Nope sorry, addiction in reality, is a medical condition not a result of not believing. 

I was a believer growing up if you must know. But none of what I did right or wrong as a kid or teen had anything to do with a sky hero vs a ground troll making bets over the neurons in my brain. But even with all my problems, I was never a violent felon, and when I grew up and started I outgrew my insecurities. 

I didn't reject religion because of anything good or bad happening back then, I simply thought about the claims and over a decade the more I thought about them and studied the history of MULTIPLE religions, the less I saw them as credible, and the more I saw them as merely human inventions.

I lost my late mother in 2017, but as horrible as that loss was, it still wasn't about hating a fictional being. It still hurt, but was an unfortunate part of nature and reality.

Humans worldwide all go through good and bad to greater or lesser degrees, and neither require a sky wizard to explain.

(January 24, 2019 at 11:14 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 24, 2019 at 10:52 am)Acrobat Wrote: Out of curiosity, did you do a lot of drugs when you were younger Brian?

What does that have to do with shit? There are plenty of theists who still hold their beliefs in God and are addicts.

Nope sorry, addiction in reality, is a medical condition not a result of not believing. 

I was a believer growing up if you must know. But none of what I did right or wrong as a kid or teen had anything to do with a sky hero vs a ground troll making bets over the neurons in my brain. But even with all my problems, I was never a violent felon, and when I grew up and started I outgrew my insecurities. 

I didn't reject religion because of anything good or bad happening back then, I simply thought about the claims and over a decade the more I thought about them and studied the history of MULTIPLE religions, the less I saw them as credible, and the more I saw them as merely human inventions.

I lost my late mother in 2017, but as horrible as that loss was, it still wasn't about hating a fictional being. It still hurt, but was an unfortunate part of nature and reality.

Humans worldwide all go through good and bad to greater or lesser degrees, and neither require a sky wizard to explain.

No worries, you don’t have to answer.

It’s been my experience that many people who used drugs heavily, regardless of if their believers or unbelievers, share a certain cadence, pattern in their responses.

You responses seem similiar to their’s, and out of curiosity, I wonder if heavy drug use is the common variable. I wasn’t trying to attach this to your disbelief, or beliefs.

(January 24, 2019 at 10:48 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Not at all, which is why I've been trying to familiarize you with moral realism.  


To a non natural realist, the badness of the thing is directly apprehended by the intellect.  It's a non empirical fact which is only coincidentally informed by the empirical facts of the matter (say, harm).  A property that some object has, that many otherwise disparate objects -can- have. 

To a natural realist, the badness of the thing is shorthand for observing a grab bag of empirical properties.  Harm is used illustratively as an umbrella term for these...but it can get needlingly specific depending on which variant of natural realism one refers to.  

So, on the one hand, it's not actually true that a moral fact is an evaluative premise or proposition on it's face..but, if it were..that poses no more difficulty than certifying any other list of empirical premises or propositions.

Do you find that objection difficult to handle in your own divine morality, and how do you address it?

You just seem to be dancing around the question.

So we'll simply if for, with Yes or No, which you can elaborate on if you choose: 

Calling the holocaust morally bad, is a value judgement. Yes or No?

Values judgements are evaluative proposition, Yes or No?

Will you actually answer these questions head on, or just dance around them like Sarah Huckabee?

(January 24, 2019 at 11:51 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 24, 2019 at 10:48 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Not at all, which is why I've been trying to familiarize you with moral realism.  


To a non natural realist, the badness of the thing is directly apprehended by the intellect.  It's a non empirical fact which is only coincidentally informed by the empirical facts of the matter (say, harm).  A property that some object has, that many otherwise disparate objects -can- have. 

To a natural realist, the badness of the thing is shorthand for observing a grab bag of empirical properties.  Harm is used illustratively as an umbrella term for these...but it can get needlingly specific depending on which variant of natural realism one refers to.  

So, on the one hand, it's not actually true that a moral fact is an evaluative premise or proposition on it's face..but, if it were..that poses no more difficulty than certifying any other list of empirical premises or propositions.

Do you find that objection difficult to handle in your own divine morality, and how do you address it?

You just seem to be dancing around the question.

So we'll simply if for, with Yes or No, which you can elaborate on if you choose: 

Calling the holocaust morally bad, is a value judgement. Yes or No?

Depends on who you ask, and it's not particularly troubling if it is in that persons answer - as you just quoted me explaining to you.

Quote:Values judgements are evaluative proposition, Yes or No?

Are you actually answer these questions head on, or just dance around them like Sarah Huckabee?

Shuckabee!

Why would it matter?  A realist would tell you that we make value judgements by reference to moral facts.  The facts are not themselves the value judgment, but the standard judged by.  Our value judgements are subject to all of our flaws, regardless of whether or not there are moral facts, or that we possess those moral facts, or the manner in which we apprehend those moral facts.  

The objection you've been failing to competently field..is actually not a subjectivist, relativist, or nihilist objection.  It's the objection of moral disagreement...which is also an issue between competing realist camps.  The way it goes is like so.  First, we insist that there is something potentially or meaningfully subjective (or in whatever sense unique) to a persons moral appraisals.  Be it their facts, their evaluative premises, their conclusions...whatever.    

-So far so good, realists also think that this is true.  

Now, having established that, we'll invent someone to disagree with some moral fact, evaluative premise, or conclusion.  Voila, moral disagreement is produced.

-Moral realists also acknowledge that moral disagreement exists.

Now, we posit the question "What do you say to that, huh, how do you prove them wrong?"

-Indeed.  Though the answer is commonly anticlimactic.  

The same way we prove anyone else wrong about any other thing.  We lay out the observations we refer to as facts, we arrange those facts as sound propositions in a valid form of inference.  We then show how the conclusion follows from the propositions.  

....Or.....

If you're a non natural realist, you can just pull a Tim, and tell them to look at the bones!

"But what if that doesn't work?"

-Cages, bricks. Realists also acknowledge that there are people who either cannot be reasoned with, or who have diminished or damage faculties of observation, or are in possession of an alternative set of empirical facts of a matter x with moral import.

You, for example, have indicated that your moral conclusions hinge on the veracity of an empirical fact of a god and having been made in it's image. For a natural realist, or a non natural realist, the solution to the holocaust is simply to show that those facts about the holocaust to which they refer are true. You, on the other hand... must establish that....and... the factual existence of a god, in whose image you are made..for your moral conclusions to be true.

Suppose you both used the same emperical propositions and they are true? In a universe where there is a god you are both correct, though the other guy didn't need your god. In a universe where there is no god..you are not correct, but the other guy still is. You aren't disputing what he considers the moral facts - you both claimed the same to be true, you are disputing some emperical god fact.

This, in sum, is why moral disagreement isn't quite as toothy an objection as people think it is when they first dive into the subject. We disagree about everything, that doesn't mean that none of us can be right about anything..or at least we don't think it means that.

(January 24, 2019 at 11:32 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 24, 2019 at 11:14 am)Brian37 Wrote: What does that have to do with shit? There are plenty of theists who still hold their beliefs in God and are addicts.

Nope sorry, addiction in reality, is a medical condition not a result of not believing. 

I was a believer growing up if you must know. But none of what I did right or wrong as a kid or teen had anything to do with a sky hero vs a ground troll making bets over the neurons in my brain. But even with all my problems, I was never a violent felon, and when I grew up and started I outgrew my insecurities. 

I didn't reject religion because of anything good or bad happening back then, I simply thought about the claims and over a decade the more I thought about them and studied the history of MULTIPLE religions, the less I saw them as credible, and the more I saw them as merely human inventions.

I lost my late mother in 2017, but as horrible as that loss was, it still wasn't about hating a fictional being. It still hurt, but was an unfortunate part of nature and reality.

Humans worldwide all go through good and bad to greater or lesser degrees, and neither require a sky wizard to explain.

No worries, you don’t have to answer.

It’s been my experience that many people who used drugs heavily, regardless of if their believers or unbelievers,  share a certain cadence, pattern in their responses.

You responses seem similiar to their’s, and out of curiosity,  I wonder if heavy drug use is the common variable. I wasn’t trying to attach this to your disbelief, or beliefs.

Nothing to answer. 

You asked disgusting and inappropriate question about humans who have real problems just so you could go "ah ha".  Now you claim the "pattern " you see overlaps between believers and non believers. So what? 

You were trying to attach it to my lack of belief, and now you are back peddling. It does not matter if someone is or is not an addict. It does not matter if someone is rich or poor. None of the good or bad that happen in life need a sky wizard to explain. 

If we were talking about someone surviving a plane crash or winning the lottery my response is going to be also the same. No magic needed to explain the good or bad in life.

(January 24, 2019 at 12:24 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 24, 2019 at 11:51 am)Acrobat Wrote: You just seem to be dancing around the question.

So we'll simply if for, with Yes or No, which you can elaborate on if you choose: 

Calling the holocaust morally bad, is a value judgement. Yes or No?

Values judgements are evaluative proposition, Yes or No?

Depends on who you ask, and it's not particularly troubling if it is in that persons answer - as you just quoted me explaining to you.

I'm asking you, so care to answer them from you own personal moral perspective? Or are you just going to keep dancing.

(January 24, 2019 at 10:48 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Not at all, which is why I've been trying to familiarize you with moral realism.  


To a non natural realist, the badness of the thing is directly apprehended by the intellect.  It's a non empirical fact which is only coincidentally informed by the empirical facts of the matter (say, harm).  A property that some object has, that many otherwise disparate objects -can- have. 

To a natural realist, the badness of the thing is shorthand for observing a grab bag of empirical properties.  Harm is used illustratively as an umbrella term for these...but it can get needlingly specific depending on which variant of natural realism one refers to.  

So, on the one hand, it's not actually true that a moral fact is an evaluative premise or proposition on it's face..but, if it were..that poses no more difficulty than certifying any other list of empirical premises or propositions.

Do you find that objection difficult to handle in your own divine morality, and how do you address it?