(January 30, 2019 at 9:25 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(January 30, 2019 at 9:16 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Okay so, you believe Goodness and badness are not "stuff", they're are mental designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.


And that these mental designations exist independent of our minds,  as a part of objective reality. Or in other words in your view reality possess mental properties?

If not can you explain how mental designations have an existence independent of minds.

It's like 2 + 2 = 4. It is so no matter what anyone thinks about it, yet it doesn't mean there is a literal 2 or 4 out there.

Or that our thoughts -are- twos and fours.

(January 30, 2019 at 9:27 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 30, 2019 at 8:58 am)pocaracas Wrote: I'd say that's a brute fact of society, not reality.
Society is an intangible thing that arises from the interactions of several individuals, hopefully, to make life easier and more prosperous to every individual within the group.

This doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Actually, it does.

(January 30, 2019 at 9:27 am)Acrobat Wrote: Even if every other person in my society claimed that  torturing innocent babies just for fun is good, they would be wrong, just as they would be if every other person in my society claimed the earth is flat. Societies or people might recognize a fact, but they themselves are not the authors of it.

The "rules" of society, like I hinted at in my previous post, are those that lead to the betterment of individuals in the group.
In your hypothetical case, the outcome would be a generation of dysfunctional people and, ultimately, extinction. As such, if such a trait were to appear in a population, either that population would disappear quickly, or the trait would be selected against, by having those individuals with that trait made unable to propagate it through jail or capital punishment.

The wrongness you now perceive towards such a behaviour hints that, at some time in the past, in human (or very likely pre-ape) populations it was selected against, as it was deemed that the group would suffer from it... And probably did suffer.

(January 30, 2019 at 9:27 am)Acrobat Wrote: You can take an infant, a baby, put on a puppet show where one puppet is cruel or mean, and they seem to recognize that there's something wrong about that behavior, that this level of recognization is not dependent on external social influences telling him that it is.

Yes, we do have some innate sense of morality. Like all other social species on this planet.

If you haven't yet, I advise you to watch this Ted talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_...anguage=en

(January 30, 2019 at 11:07 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Familiar with reference? Realist semantics implicitly carry an assumption of referential realism. Put simply, a mental designation may only exist in a mind (and this is true pretty much by definition) - but that places no such restriction on it's referent.

So long as the mental designations..that only exist in our minds, carry existent referents beyond them, they are taken to be objective and "real" - those that don't, aren't.

Lol, you denied the existence of good and bad as “stuff”, unlike a cup, or two apples.

If you believe in some sort platonic conception of the form of the Good, it might make sense that when you say good, it’s referring to an existent referent out there in reality.

But you deny the very existence of the thing your mental designations are supposedly referring to out there.

---

(January 31, 2019 at 4:05 am)pocaracas Wrote: In your hypothetical case, the outcome would be a generation of dysfunctional people and, ultimately, extinction. As such, if such a trait were to appear in a population, either that population would disappear quickly, or the trait would be selected against, by having those individuals with that trait made unable to propagate it through jail or capital punishment.

The wrongness you now perceive towards such a behaviour hints that, at some time in the past, in human (or very likely pre-ape) populations it was selected against, as it was deemed that the group would suffer from it... And probably did suffer.

You’re over extending evolution here.

Evolution pertains to the selections of components of our biological makeup. When it comes to morality, at best it describe components of our inner states, our physiological sensations, and feelings. The discomfort you might feel when seeing the holocaust.

When it comes to wrongness, you’re not describing your inner biological state, but speaking of something out there not in here.


Secondly evolution selected for a variety of components that drove the holocaust. The primary element being the psychological phenomena of scapegoating. The scapegoating of jews arose out of components that were selected for. And scapegoating serves a variety of purposes especially for groups, it’s bring those doing the scapegoating together, motivates them to a common cause, foster group solidarity, provides catharsis. Hitler ability to unify Germany the way he did relied on such evolutionary components of our psychologically.

Evolution also doesn’t think in ultimate terms, it relies on existing environment pressures for selection, not non-existing futures ones. It’s short sighted. Hence why features like scapegoating are pretty much a universal, even if it can have long term negative consequences.

Quote:The "rules" of society, like I hinted at in my previous post, are those that lead to the betterment of individuals in the group.

No, scapegoating might be beneficial for a groups survival, but it would still be immoral.

Secondly our moral intuitions are not seen in relationship to society or a group. Hence why when you’re trying to get your children to recognize something they did is wrong, you can say how would you like it if someone treated you that way, rather than how does it negatively contribute to the betterment of the group. If you try to use the latter approach, they’d probably just shrug their shoulders, and dismiss it.

You’re getting your child to recognize a moral truth, that you ought to treat others and you would like to be treated, the golden rule, that a moral reality imposes on them, not their society, or people.

(January 31, 2019 at 6:10 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 30, 2019 at 11:07 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Familiar with reference?  Realist semantics implicitly carry an assumption of referential realism.  Put simply, a mental designation may only exist in a mind (and this is true pretty much by definition) - but that places no such restriction on it's referent.

So long as the mental designations..that only exist in our minds, carry existent referents beyond them, they are taken to be objective and "real" - those that don't, aren't.  

Lol, you denied the existence of good and bad as “stuff”, unlike a cup, or two apples.

If you believe in some sort platonic conception of the form of the Good, it might make sense that when you say good, it’s referring to an existent referent out there in reality.

But you deny the very existence of the thing your mental designations are supposedly referring to out there.

I deny that you're capable of competently describing it.  Try again you tedious moron, lol.

Honestly, it's not as if this is complicated. You spoke directly out of your ass. Own it.

(January 31, 2019 at 6:10 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 31, 2019 at 4:05 am)pocaracas Wrote: In your hypothetical case, the outcome would be a generation of dysfunctional people and, ultimately, extinction. As such, if such a trait were to appear in a population, either that population would disappear quickly, or the trait would be selected against, by having those individuals with that trait made unable to propagate it through jail or capital punishment.

The wrongness you now perceive towards such a behaviour hints that, at some time in the past, in human (or very likely pre-ape) populations it was selected against, as it was deemed that the group would suffer from it... And probably did suffer.

You’re over extending evolution here.

Evolution pertains to the selections of components of our biological makeup. When it comes to morality, at best it describe components of our inner states, our physiological sensations, and feelings. The discomfort you might feel when seeing the holocaust.

When it comes to wrongness,  you’re not describing your inner biological state, but speaking of something out there not in here.

Wrong.
When you speak of wrongness, you speak of an emotion, which is an "inner biological state".

(January 31, 2019 at 6:10 am)Acrobat Wrote: Secondly evolution selected for a variety of components that drove the holocaust. The primary element being the psychological phenomena of scapegoating. The scapegoating of jews arose out of components that were selected for. And scapegoating serves a variety of purposes especially for groups, it’s bring those doing the scapegoating together, motivates them to a common cause, foster group solidarity, provides catharsis. Hitler ability to unify Germany the way he did relied on such evolutionary components of our psychologically.

Ah... Hitler... the holocaust... it happened because the "others" were seen as inferior.
Evolution provided us with tools to deal with our own group, our tribe... others are always some form of enemy.
Nowadays, with out awareness of the whole worldwide population, some of us can extend this inner tribe to somehow encompass this global population. But most people still can't do that. Let it evolve... it will take hundreds of years if not millennia.

(January 31, 2019 at 6:10 am)Acrobat Wrote: Evolution also doesn’t think in ultimate terms, it relies on existing environment pressures for selection,  not non-existing futures ones. It’s short sighted. Hence why features like scapegoating are pretty much a universal, even if it can have long term negative consequences.

Yes, but, for the tribe, they are usually positive.

(January 31, 2019 at 6:10 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:The "rules" of society, like I hinted at in my previous post, are those that lead to the betterment of individuals in the group.

No, scapegoating might be beneficial for a groups survival, but it would still be immoral.

Immoral to you, with an elevated sense of the group.
But those with short concepts of their own group would think more like: My group survives better if adjacent groups do worse, as they will consume less resources that we can then use.

(January 31, 2019 at 6:10 am)Acrobat Wrote: Secondly our moral intuitions are not seen in relationship to society or a group. Hence why when you’re trying to get your children to recognize something they did is wrong, you can say how would you like it if someone treated you that way, rather than how does it negatively contribute to the betterment of the group. If you try to use the latter approach, they’d probably just shrug their shoulders, and dismiss it.

You’re getting your child to recognize a moral truth, that you ought to treat others and you would like to be treated, the golden rule, that a moral reality imposes on them, not their society, or people.

But this "moral reality" is being imposed by the desire to live in society.
Even if it's not immediately visible (and I can tell that you're not seeing it), it is this desire (which is an actual need or dependency) to live in society that drives us to have moral behaviors.

Sociopaths and psychopaths provide us with a glimpse into behaviors of those who lack such a drive to live in society.... behaviors devoid of morality.

(January 31, 2019 at 9:37 am)pocaracas Wrote: Wrong.
When you speak of wrongness, you speak of an emotion, which is an "inner biological state".

No, speaking of wrongness, or saying something is wrong, doesn’t equate to you telling me your emotions, or expressing to me your feelings, or describing your inner biological state. You’re not actually say something about you at all, you’re saying something about something else. When saying the holocaust is bad, you’re not telling me how the holocaust makes you feel, you’re saying something about the holocaust itself.

Imagine, you drop your wallet, I keep the money in it and discard it, I have conflicting emotions I feel negative emotions like guilt, I feel pleasant emotions because I get to buy something nice. I tell myself, there’s nothing wrong with what I just did, it’s just some negative emotions, caused by a mix of environmental and social factors, but it’ll pass like a tummy ache over time.

Such a person, whose account of his emotional state is accurate, reducing the wrongness of what he did, to dismiss it like any other temporary biological discomfort, would be akin to a sociopath.

Only a sociopath would operate and live, as if the wrongness of things, is reducible to his emotional states, as if the wrongness of things losses it’s wrongness, if our emotional reactions to it decline.

Quote:Ah... Hitler... the holocaust... it happened because the "others" were seen as inferior.
Evolution provided us with tools to deal with our own group, our tribe... others are always some form of enemy.
Nowadays, with out awareness of the whole worldwide population, some of us can extend this inner tribe to somehow encompass this global population. But most people still can't do that. Let it evolve... it will take hundreds of years if not millennia.

The holocaust arose in large part by the human capacity of scapegoating, scapegoating, like other cognitive defense mechanics like, confirmation biases, are features selected for by evolution. The Jews became the scapegoat for all the problems of German society. When societies scapegoat the targets are often those seen as lesser or weaker, minorities, etc..

This capacity was selected for by evolution, and your belief that somehow this element has been eradicated as time goes on is, is just nonsense.

It’s also a fairy tale, to think that people have extended their once deep rooted devotion to their tribes to societies. As if the devotion you feel for those intimately in your life, has been extended to the faceless, nameless members of your society.

I care far more about my child, my wife, my friends, my small community, than I ever will yours. And this is not because I posses some archaic biological makeup that you don’t.

Quote:But this "moral reality" is being imposed by the desire to live in society.
Even if it's not immediately visible (and I can tell that you're not seeing it), it is this desire (which is an actual need or dependency) to live in society that drives us to have moral behaviors.

Behaviors you might label as “moral”, are not the same as “moral beliefs”. Apes may display behaviors we would label as moral, but they lack any moral system of beliefs, they’re not moral realist, moral subjectivist, moral nihilist etc... they don’t have an ontology of morality. Or if they do, it would remain forever unknown to us.

Our beliefs are not reducible to our biology, particularly when they're not reflections on our inner states and processes. They often pertain, particularly when it comes to our moral beliefs to an external reality.

To say wrongness is merely a feeling, to me, is similiar to claiming that things I see in front of me, are just in my head, and not out there, as I perceive them to be.

Perhaps you believe that, are a moral subjectivist in this regard, good and bad, is sort of like your taste in music, or food, where goodness and badness are merely expressions of subjective preference. But it doesn’t even seem that most atheists here accept that, and tend to be averse to when people like myself try and reduce their moral views as such.

(January 31, 2019 at 2:43 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Perhaps you believe that, are a moral subjectivist in this regard, good and bad, is sort of like your taste in music, or food, where goodness and badness are merely expressions of subjective preference. But it doesn’t even seem that most atheists here accept that, and tend to be averse to when people like myself try and reduce their moral views as such.

The notion that morals are emotional expressions is not subjectivism.  It's a form of non-cognitive moral theory called emotivism. Subjectivism... is a cognitive theory.

(January 31, 2019 at 8:09 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 31, 2019 at 6:10 am)Acrobat Wrote: Lol, you denied the existence of good and bad as “stuff”, unlike a cup, or two apples.

If you believe in some sort platonic conception of the form of the Good, it might make sense that when you say good, it’s referring to an existent referent out there in reality.

But you deny the very existence of the thing your mental designations are supposedly referring to out there.

I deny that you're capable of competently describing it. Try again you tedious moron, lol.

Honestly, it's not as if this is complicated. You spoke directly out of your ass. Own it.

Yet, moral realism faces a considerable amount of criticism, both among professional philosophers and laymen, and clearly your own fellow atheists don’t seem persuaded by the arguments for it, to ever get off the fence.

Your views are incoherent and contradictory.
You deny that goodness and badness exists as “stuff”, the when speaking about them as “mental designations” you say they refer to “stuff” out there in reality.

In reality what you done is likely persuaded readers here more to defend subjectivism and relativism than realism, so good job.

(January 31, 2019 at 2:53 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 31, 2019 at 8:09 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: I deny that you're capable of competently describing it.  Try again you tedious moron, lol.

Honestly, it's not as if this is complicated.  You spoke directly out of your ass.  Own it.

Yet, moral realism faces a considerable amount of criticism, both among professional philosophers and laymen, and clearly your own fellow atheists don’t seem persuaded by the arguments for it, to ever get off the fence.

That's a common misconception.  Moral realism doesn't actually face much criticism at all...particularly among philosophers. Purported realist statements face withering criticism..particularly -from- realist philosophers.

This isn't to say that there aren't compelling positions that would, if true, reduce moral realism to being false...regardless of a persons superstitions....just that those theories are broader comments on the nature of reality as a whole, not morality specifically. Moral realism has no problems with coherence, there's nothing fundamentally contradictory about it, and no requirement that a person be delusional to find it compelling.

Quote:Your views are incoherent and contradictory.
You deny that goodness and badness exists as “stuff”, the when speaking about them as “mental designations” you say they refer to “stuff” out there in reality.

I don't say any such thing.  You say such things.   You say them, because you can't find anything contradictory, incoherent, or delusional about any of -my- statements..and....frankly, know far too little about the subject to ever be expected to find such a belief if I did possess it.  

(made all the more hilarious by the fact that I certainly do - all you would have to do was to find whats there - but ya can't...lol)

Quote:In reality what you done is likely persuaded readers here more to defend subjectivism and relativism than realism, so good job.

You don't know what those things are, so how could you know that?

(January 31, 2019 at 3:02 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 31, 2019 at 2:53 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Yet, moral realism faces a considerable amount of criticism, both among professional philosophers and laymen, and clearly your own fellow atheists don’t seem persuaded by the arguments for it, to ever get off the fence.

That's a common misconception.  Moral realism doesn't actually face much criticism at all...particularly among philosophers. Purported realist statements face withering criticism..particularly -from- realist philosophers.

Quote:Your views are incoherent and contradictory.
You deny that goodness and badness exists as “stuff”, the when speaking about them as “mental designations” you say they refer to “stuff” out there in reality.

I don't say any such thing.  You say such things.   You say them, because you can't find anything contradictory, incoherent, or delusional about any of -my- statements..and....frankly, know far too little about the subject to ever be expected to find such a belief if I did possess it.  

Quote:In reality what you done is likely persuaded readers here more to defend subjectivism and relativism than realism, so good job.

You don't know what those things are, so how could you know that?

Okay please tell us what the existening referents for “goodness” and “badness” are, that are supposedly not “stuff”?

---

(January 31, 2019 at 2:53 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(January 31, 2019 at 2:43 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Perhaps you believe that, are a moral subjectivist in this regard, good and bad, is sort of like your taste in music, or food, where goodness and badness are merely expressions of subjective preference. But it doesn’t even seem that most atheists here accept that, and tend to be averse to when people like myself try and reduce their moral views as such.

The notion that morals are emotional expressions is not subjectivism.  It's a form of non-cognitive moral theory called emotivism. Subjectivism... is a cognitive theory.

I’ll use this distinction between the two:

“emotivists, believe that moral propositions and ethical sentences are only expressions of emotions. Thus moral statements have no truth value, hence why they are non-cognitivists.

Subjectivists on the other hand believe that moral propositions and ethical sentences are a way of reporting emotions, and so these moral statements may be true or false depending on the attitude of the individual, hence why they are cognitivists.”