(January 30, 2019 at 2:36 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 30, 2019 at 1:59 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: There are bad things - the moral fact.
holocaust is a bad thing - the value judgement.
we should avoid doing bad things because of x - the evaluative proposition.  

Lets try the same thing  with food taste.

1.)There are bad things (things that taste bad), and good things (things that taste good). A taste fact

Indian food tastes bad - the value judgement

We should avoid eating things that taste bad because of x - the evaluative proposition.

I’m a taste realist. I believe in objective tastism.

Tell me why this argument for objective tastism is false, since it borrows your basic logic.


Or let's try it alternatively.

I think that peoples tastes are explicitly subjective. I suppose we may be able to generalize some things, we share a massive amount of our biology and that does actually include the way things taste to us. Those things would be the only things that I would include in a final revision of any "taste objectivism". You're not really grasping the fact that a realist doesn't have to insist that there are no subjective value judgements, are you?

Quote:2.)There are bad things, just like there are yellow things, and blue things, and circle things, and square things.

Yep.

Quote:Moral Goodness and Badness exist independently of us, \

Yep.

Quote:reality possess good and bad moral properties,

Nope. Part/whole.

Quote:that exist indepedently of our minds, just like yellow and blue do.

Yep.

Quote:Reality possess “the stuff of morality”, which our minds can perceive, but exists independently of them, exists objectively.

Nope. Goodness and badness are not "stuff" floating around out there. They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.

Quote:A persons inability to see the bad or good things, is sort of like being color blind, and not seeing the objective yellowness of  my wife’s dress.

Nope. They may simply lack relevant facts, or be in possession of an alternative set of facts.

Quote:

Quote:Until you can establish a superstitious requirement to moral realism or civil rights this is as doa as it was the first time you asserted it. Simple empirical facts such as the existence of atheists in the civil rights movement and the preponderance of atheists advocating for moral realism, combined with the presence of influential atheists in both areas tells me that you're just flat out wrong.

No atheists and others have and can support and be a part of things like the civil rights movement, and lack the basic moral commitments of folks like MLK, in his belief in a moral order of the cosmos. But their lack of such commitments render them unable to rise above sheep following a shepherd willing to make the commitments they refuse to, or an unable too.  They’re lack of commitments to such beliefs renders them unable to be an MLK, though they can be supportive followers of him.

Saying it over and over won't make it true.  : shrugs :

(January 30, 2019 at 2:54 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I think that peoples tastes are explicitly subjective. I suppose we may be able to generalize some things, we share a massive amount of our biology and that does actually include the way things taste to us. Those things would be the only things that I would include in a final revision of any "taste objectivism".

Okay, so your moral objectivism, would be akin to this final revision of “taste objectivism”?

The same logic you use to hold moral objectivism, can be applied to form taste objectivism as well.

While some things may subjectively taste bad, at least some things objectively taste bad? The reason why one set of taste remain in the subjective category, is because it’s not shared as in common as those tastes that are shared more commonly? A strong consensus of subjective taste, makes them objective tastes?

Quote:

Quote:that exist indepedently of our minds, just like yellow and blue do.

Yep.

Quote:Reality possess “the stuff of morality”, which our minds can perceive, but exists independently of them, exists objectively.

Nope.  Goodness and badness are not "stuff" floating around out there.  They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.  

Yellowness of things, the blueness of things, the squareness of things, exist objectively, out there, not dependent on our thoughts or categorizations, or beliefs. The balloon is yellow regardless of what I think or conceptualize. So either badness and goodnesses exists in such a way, or they don’t? I’m assuming the answer from you is that they don’t.

Do goodness and badness exists outside of our mental designations, or are they dependent on such conceptual designations to exists. That absent of human being to make such designations good and badness don’t exist? I.e, That holocaust is neither good nor bad.

Facts are not dependent on our beliefs, or thoughts, or designations. Yet you seem to insist that moral facts are.

(January 30, 2019 at 3:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 30, 2019 at 2:54 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I think that peoples tastes are explicitly subjective. I suppose we may be able to generalize some things, we share a massive amount of our biology and that does actually include the way things taste to us. Those things would be the only things that I would include in a final revision of any "taste objectivism".

Okay, so your moral objectivism, would be akin to this final revision of “taste objectivism”?

The same logic you use to hold moral objectivism, can be applied to form taste objectivism as well.

While some things may subjectively taste bad, at least some things objectively taste bad? The reason why one set of taste remain in the subjective category, is because it’s not shared as in common as those tastes that are shared more commonly? A strong consensus of subjective taste, makes them objective tastes?

More or less, sure....though..again, because I'm a realist somethings intersubjectivity isn't the same as somethings being objective - though ultimately the two can be difficult to separate.  

Quote:

Quote:Yep.

Nope.  Goodness and badness are not "stuff" floating around out there.  They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.  

Yellowness of things, the blueness of things, the squareness of things, exist objectively, out there, not dependent on our thoughts or categorizations, or beliefs. The balloon is yellow regardless of what I think or conceptualize. So either badness and goodnesses exists in such a way, or they don’t? I’m assuming the answer from you is that they don’t.

Do goodness and badness exists outside of our mental designations, or are they dependent on such conceptual designations to exists. That absent of human being to make such designations good and badness don’t exist? I.e, That holocaust is neither good nor bad.

Facts are not dependent on our beliefs, or thoughts, or designations. Yet you seem to insist that moral facts are.

You keep insisting that I do no matter how many times I tell you otherwise.  Why ask me a question about what I think if you're going to ignore my answer and provide your own in it's place?

-I think- that there are moral facts of a matter, but I'm not certifying every random fucking thing that falls out of peoples mouths and gets called a fact as one of them. Mostly, because people like you exist and make such claims, lol. It's certainly possible for the things a person calls a fact to be dependent on their beliefs. You've been a case example of that in this thread and the last.

For example, you believe that an atheist realist is delusional and incoherent. On the basis of that belief..and seemingly nothing else, you've breathlessly repeated as much as though it were a fact. You believe that it's just -impossibru- for there to be an atheist MLK (whatever the fuck you think that means) and assert this much as a fact as well. That I think that there are facts, doesn't mean that I have to think that these things are facts, nor does my strong suggestion™ that these things are not facts..but, instead, products of your beliefs, indicate that I think there are no facts.

Follow?

(January 30, 2019 at 3:35 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 30, 2019 at 3:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Okay, so your moral objectivism, would be akin to this final revision of “taste objectivism”?

The same logic you use to hold moral objectivism, can be applied to form taste objectivism as well.

While some things may subjectively taste bad, at least some things objectively taste bad? The reason why one set of taste remain in the subjective category, is because it’s not shared as in common as those tastes that are shared more commonly? A strong consensus of subjective taste, makes them objective tastes?

More or less, sure....though..again, because I'm a realist somethings intersubjectivity isn't the same as somethings being objective - though ultimately the two can be difficult to separate.  

Quote:Yellowness of things, the blueness of things, the squareness of things, exist objectively, out there, not dependent on our thoughts or categorizations, or beliefs. The balloon is yellow regardless of what I think or conceptualize. So either badness and goodnesses exists in such a way, or they don’t? I’m assuming the answer from you is that they don’t.

Do goodness and badness exists outside of our mental designations, or are they dependent on such conceptual designations to exists. That absent of human being to make such designations good and badness don’t exist? I.e, That holocaust is neither good nor bad.

Facts are not dependent on our beliefs, or thoughts, or designations. Yet you seem to insist that moral facts are.

You keep insisting that I do no matter how many times I tell you otherwise.  Why ask me a question about what I think if you're going to ignore my answer and provide your own in it's place?

-I think- that there are moral facts of a matter, but I'm not certifying every random fucking thing that falls out of peoples mouths and gets called a fact as one of them.  Mostly, because people like you exist and make such claims, lol.  It's certainly possible for the things a person calls a fact to be dependent on their beliefs.   You've been a case example of that in this thread and the last.  

For example, you believe that an atheist realist is delusional and incoherent.  On the basis of that belief..and seemingly nothing else, you've breathlessly repeated as much as though it were a fact.

Okay so the goodness, badness of things, don't exist independent of conceptual designations.  Good and bad, exists relative to some particular standpoint, and don't exist outside of that standpoint. 

Outside of this standpoint the holocaust is neither good nor bad. 

Agreed?

I'm not ignoring your answer, I don't find your answer all that clear, so I do my best to tell you how I understand your responses. If my understanding is wrong, then I expect additional clarifications.

(January 30, 2019 at 3:46 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 30, 2019 at 3:35 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: More or less, sure....though..again, because I'm a realist somethings intersubjectivity isn't the same as somethings being objective - though ultimately the two can be difficult to separate.  

You keep insisting that I do no matter how many times I tell you otherwise.  Why ask me a question about what I think if you're going to ignore my answer and provide your own in it's place?

-I think- that there are moral facts of a matter, but I'm not certifying every random fucking thing that falls out of peoples mouths and gets called a fact as one of them.  Mostly, because people like you exist and make such claims, lol.  It's certainly possible for the things a person calls a fact to be dependent on their beliefs.   You've been a case example of that in this thread and the last.  

For example, you believe that an atheist realist is delusional and incoherent.  On the basis of that belief..and seemingly nothing else, you've breathlessly repeated as much as though it were a fact.

Okay so the goodness, badness of things, don't exist independent of conceptual designations.  Good and bad, exists relative to some particular standpoint, and don't exist outside of that standpoint. 

Can you read?  This is just two posts back.....and nothing in the quoted comments above has anything to do with the shit you just responded with......

Quote:

Quote: Wrote:Moral Goodness and Badness exist independently of us, \

Yep.

Quote:Outside of this standpoint the holocaust is neither good nor bad. 

Agreed?

No.....jesus fucking christ this is tedious.  

Quote:I'm not ignoring your answer, I don't find your answer all that clear, so I do my best to tell you how I understand your responses. If my understanding is wrong, then I expect additional clarifications.

Sure.  

Tell you what might help you understand. Reading.

(January 30, 2019 at 3:50 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 30, 2019 at 3:46 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Okay so the goodness, badness of things, don't exist independent of conceptual designations.  Good and bad, exists relative to some particular standpoint, and don't exist outside of that standpoint. 

Can you read?  This is just two posts back.....and nothing in the quoted comments above has anything to do with the shit you just responded with......

Quote:Yep.

Quote:Outside of this standpoint the holocaust is neither good nor bad. 

Agreed?

No.....jesus fucking christ this is tedious.  

Quote:I'm not ignoring your answer, I don't find your answer all that clear, so I do my best to tell you how I understand your responses. If my understanding is wrong, then I expect additional clarifications.

Sure.  

Tell you what might help you understand.  Reading.

To quote you: "Goodness and badness are not "stuff" floating around out there.  They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.  "


I take your "stuff floating around out there" to mean: Goodness and badness are stuff that doesn't exist out there in reality, independent of our mental designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so. Or am i still misunderstanding you? 

Outside of our mental designations, do goodness and badness exist?

(January 30, 2019 at 2:54 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

Quote:Moral Goodness and Badness exist independently of us, \

Yep.

How can a single word answer now repeated three times have you so utterly confused?

There is no requirement that I believe that goodness and badness is a miasmatic dust which settles on things and by doing so makes them bad. Only that the thing to which we refer exists and is present regardless of our opinion of it. Since those things to which I would refer do exist, and are present, regardless of my opinion of them or your opinion of them, they form the basis of a coherent empirical claim on moral realism.

(January 30, 2019 at 4:17 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: How can a single word answer now repeated three times have you so utterly confused?

Perhaps because you keep contradicting yourself, and refuting your own previous suggestions:

Let see:


ME: “Reality possess “the stuff of morality”, which our minds can perceive, but exists independently of them, exists objectively.”


You: Nope. Goodness and badness are not "stuff" floating around out there.


You just now: Yep, moral goodness and badness exist independently of our minds.

Here's a good example dear readers, why I accuse atheists views of morality of being contradictory and self-refuting.

(January 29, 2019 at 6:29 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(January 29, 2019 at 4:43 pm)Dr H Wrote: I'm not sure I agree that "intuit's" is the equivalent of "makes a conscious choice".

My point is that it was poor wording on her part. But that's just the way I interpret it, since I used to be such a theist for a while (after leaving the Christian faith) and I would use such poor wording to describe my position. As in, I used to admit there was no evidence for God but that I chose to believe regardless (when what I really meant is that God's existence still made sense to me regardless).

That makes more sense.  Thanks for the clarification.

(January 30, 2019 at 4:31 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 30, 2019 at 4:17 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: How can a single word answer now repeated three times have you so utterly confused?

Perhaps because you keep contradicting yourself, and refuting your own previous suggestions:

Let see:


ME: “Reality possess “the stuff of morality”, which our minds can perceive, but exists independently of them, exists objectively.”


You: Nope. Goodness and badness are not "stuff" floating around out there.


You just now: Yep, moral goodness and badness exist independently of our minds.

Here's a good example dear readers, why I accuse atheists views of morality of being contradictory and self-refuting.

It may be a clear example of why you make the accusation..but it's just as clear an example of that accusation being baseless.

That's kindof the problem, lol?

No, I don't think that morality is a stuff out there floating around and settling on shit, and I also think that goodness and badness exist independent of our minds....and? What about those two statements do you think is contradictory or self refuting?