http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm

No one will read that, and no one will have lost anything by not reading it.

(March 28, 2019 at 6:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I see.... you're on the objective train...
ok... then I'm going to have to ask you to define "objective" as it pertains to morality.

I'll keep it simple: Experienced/Observed as external to us.

Quote:From my point of view, morality is something that arises of the social group. It seems objective because it is shared by the majority (or all) the elements of the group. However, I don't think that morality is independent of the group. In the absence of the group, morality is meaningless.

When we acknowledge the immorality of the holocaust. When we say the holocaust is immoral, what we’re not saying is that it’s immoral because our social group considers it immoral. If one day our social group feels it’s the right thing to do, it would remain immoral to us, and our social group would be delusional, like a social group who became holocaust deniers.

When we acknowledge the holocaust is immoral, what we’re not acknowledging is something internal to us or our social group, such as I’m not saying the holocaust is immoral because of how it makes me feel, or because of my societies personal opinion. If we were to call the the Nazi’s immoral, we’re not saying what they did is wrong, only because us american’s are of the opinion that it’s wrong.

We are acknowledging and claiming an objective truth, that it’s wrong regardless of what germans or american’s think.

Secondly, any of us may recognize immorality in our social groups, just as we might recognize lies or delusions in our social groups. In additions, moral perceptions have been observed in infants and toddlers, hence casting doubt on the suggestion that social groups are needed to form moral views.

Quote:I try to understand why you're wrong.

Then we should have a good conversation!

Quote:I never said you denied anything...
I left almost explicit that you add an extra layer of what I called magic. A layer that I consider to be unnecessary and unevidenced.

I don’t know what you mean by magic, I’m merely pointing out that reality possess elements like a moral order. I don’t consider the existence of such a reality, to be magical.

Quote:Do you think the group that made the Holocaust thought it was right? It clearly wasn't a single individual with his own subjective set of morals.

The group that thought the holocaust was right, operated as truth denier, like holocaust deniers, and 9/11 truthers, not as people who had a different taste in fashion, or other subjective preferences. The Nazi’s relied on lies, delusions like scapegoating, to believe what they were doing was right. If it was just a matter of subjective opinions, or tastes, than such like delusions and lies would not have been needed to do what they did.

Quote:Do you think most of the world of antiquity thought it was right to have slaves?

I think much of antiquity had varying views on slavery. Some viewed it as wrong, but necessary. And not all forms of slavery are equal. American slavery relied on the delusional belief, that blacks were less than human to justify it.

Quote:Have I said anything that remotely hints at a desire on my part to not believe? Where am I denying my experiences of reality? What excuses am I making?

So far, I’ll keep my judgement neutral when it comes to you.

(March 28, 2019 at 11:30 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: So, about the torture of babies.

It really depends on what their crimes are.  What if the baby is a notorious and brutal serial killer?

And then there's the definition of "torture".  Some people call being locked up in isolation as "torture".  Others call being slowly lowered feet first into a woodchipper "torture".

edit

(March 28, 2019 at 6:28 pm)fredd bear Wrote: @Acrobat.

"The wrongness of torturing babies just for fun, is as objectively true as 1+1 =2, and the existence of an elephant at my local zoo."

Can't quite grasp that.Could you please provide your proof of that claim?

You have given a moral imperative as your example.  I wasn't aware that moral imperatives were objectively true.   Your claim, your burden of proof.

At present, I hold the position of moral relativism. I may indeed change my position if you can prove your claim.

We all perceive reality through our minds, some elements are perceived as external to us, like the chair in my room, or the car outside, or other people, etc.. and some are perceived as internal subjective to us, like our feelings, and tastes, like my preference for black, or sushi, etc...

The wrongness of torturing babies for fun, isn't perceived the way we perceive our emotions, or personal preferences, it's perceived and experienced as an external objective truth, not as a subjective preference. When we say torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, it's not synonymous with saying, it's wrong because I don't like it, or because my society is of the personal opinion that it is. 

If someone believed that torturing innocent babies just for fun is good, that person wouldn't be someone who has a different set of tastes, who likes pizza more than sushi, etc.., but as someone denying the holocaust happened, as delusional, as a sociopath, etc.... A person in denial of a truth, that appears self-evident to the rest of us. 

In fact we discuss and argue about morality, the way we argue about truth, not the way we might argue about the best band, of best Indian restaurant in town. 

We have no reason to deny that our experience and observations here are not external to us, that they exist purely in our mind, any more so than any other objective truth of reality, other than on the basis of some presuppositions in which it can't be so.

Quote:In additions, moral perceptions have been observed in infants and toddlers

Examples?

Boru

(March 29, 2019 at 7:02 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:In additions, moral perceptions have been observed in infants and toddlers

Examples?

Boru

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magaz...ies-t.html

(March 29, 2019 at 6:41 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 28, 2019 at 6:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I see.... you're on the objective train...
ok... then I'm going to have to ask you to define "objective" as it pertains to morality.

I'll keep it simple: Experienced/Observed as external to us.

Quote:From my point of view, morality is something that arises of the social group. It seems objective because it is shared by the majority (or all) the elements of the group. However, I don't think that morality is independent of the group. In the absence of the group, morality is meaningless.

When we acknowledge the immorality of the holocaust. When we say the holocaust is immoral, what we’re not saying is that it’s immoral because our social group considers it immoral. If one day our social group feels it’s the right thing to do, it would remain immoral to us, and our social group would be delusional, like a social group who became holocaust deniers.

When we acknowledge the holocaust is immoral, what we’re not acknowledging is something internal to us or our social group, such as I’m not saying the holocaust is immoral because of how it makes me feel, or because of my societies personal opinion. If we were to call the the Nazi’s immoral, we’re not saying what they did is wrong, only because us american’s are of the opinion that it’s wrong.

We are acknowledging and claiming an objective truth, that it’s wrong regardless of what germans or american’s think.

Claiming something and acknowledging something are two very different things. You can claim basically anything you want, no matter how ridiculous. The accepted meaning of acknowledging is that the thing acknowledged is a fact or readily apparent truth. That the holocaust was immoral is a claim. You can acknowledge that you believe the holocaust is immoral is an objective fact. You cannot acknowledge that the holocaust was objectively immoral as it isn't sufficiently well evidenced to be considered a fact or a readily apparent truth. So, your counter-argument amounts to saying little more than, "nuh uh." It's an ipse dixit argument and is thus essentially worthless for establishing your point.

(March 29, 2019 at 6:56 am)Acrobat Wrote: In fact we discuss and argue about morality, the way we argue about truth, not the way we might argue about the best band, of best Indian restaurant in town. 

We have no reason to deny that our experience and observations here are not external to us, that they exist purely in our mind, any more so than any other objective truth of reality, other than on the basis of some presuppositions in which it can't be so.

This is complete bullshit. We have every reason in the world to be skeptical of the validity of anything that isn't a direct sense perception, and even then, the acceptance is not absolute. You're simply making more meaningless ipse dixit arguments.

(March 29, 2019 at 7:35 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Claiming something and acknowledging something are two very different things.  You can claim basically anything you want, no matter how ridiculous.  The accepted meaning of acknowledging is that the thing acknowledged is a fact or readily apparent truth.  That the holocaust was immoral is a claim.  You can acknowledge that you believe the holocaust is immoral is an objective fact.  You cannot acknowledge that the holocaust was objectively immoral as it isn't sufficiently well evidenced to be considered a fact or a readily apparent truth.  So, your counter-argument amounts to saying little more than, "nuh uh."  It's an ipse dixit argument and is thus essentially worthless for establishing your point.

Torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong, this is a readily apparent truth, just like the chair in my room is as readily apparent truth. When I says it's wrong, it's akin to saying the sheets on my bed are red. Now if for some reason i though I was seeing things, I can go around asking others do they see the wrongness here as well, just like I might ask them if they see the redness of my sheets, to confirm I'm not color blind. And low and behold nearly everyone can confirm the same observation. If I asked you, do you acknowledge, recognize that torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, I'd expect you to confirm, unless you were delusional or being dishonest.

Quote:This is complete bullshit.  We have every reason in the world to be skeptical of the validity of anything that isn't a direct sense perception, and even then, the acceptance is not absolute.  You're simply making more meaningless ipse dixit arguments.

The recognition of the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun, is a direct sense perception. You'd have to be delusional not to recognize it. Now perhaps in your world you live with some sort of nagging doubts about everything you directly observe, "am i really holding the cup I'm holding", "is my mother really at the dinner table, maybe she's been replaced by an alien replica", etc.. I on the other hand trust my perceptions, unless there's some compelling basis not to. I have no reason to think my mother has been replaced by an alien replica, so I don't harbor any doubts about her being real.

In fact the only reason I can think of deny my moral perceptions, is by presupposing that atheism is true. Yet atheists also seem confused on whether morality is objective or subjective, it's not even evident to me that most atheists fall into the subjectivist camp. And I'd argue the reason why so many are not inclined to be subjectivist, is because they have a hard time denying the moral reality we all perceive, as no less real than you or I.

(March 29, 2019 at 6:41 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 28, 2019 at 6:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I see.... you're on the objective train...
ok... then I'm going to have to ask you to define "objective" as it pertains to morality.

I'll keep it simple: Experienced/Observed as external to us.

How do social aspects fit into this simple definition?

(March 29, 2019 at 6:41 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:From my point of view, morality is something that arises of the social group. It seems objective because it is shared by the majority (or all) the elements of the group. However, I don't think that morality is independent of the group. In the absence of the group, morality is meaningless.

When we acknowledge the immorality of the holocaust. When we say the holocaust is immoral, what we’re not saying is that it’s immoral because our social group considers it immoral. If one day our social group feels it’s the right thing to do, it would remain immoral to us, and our social group would be delusional, like a social group who became holocaust deniers.

When we acknowledge the holocaust is immoral, what we’re not acknowledging is something internal to us or our social group, such as I’m not saying the holocaust is immoral because of how it makes me feel, or because of my societies personal opinion. If we were to call the the Nazi’s immoral, we’re not saying what they did is wrong, only because us american’s are of the opinion that it’s wrong.

We are acknowledging and claiming an objective truth, that it’s wrong regardless of what germans or american’s think.

Secondly, any of us may recognize immorality in our social groups, just as we might recognize lies or delusions in our social groups. In additions, moral perceptions have been observed in infants and toddlers, hence casting doubt on the suggestion that social groups are needed to form moral views.

So... why do you say it's an objective truth?
How did you determine that it's objective, like the color yellow?

You recognize it as something shared by many individuals in different social groups, yes... but how does the leap in logic sees this "immorality of the holocaust" as something external to any and all individuals in all the human social groups?


That moral perceptions have been observed in toddlers and infants is no surprise to me. Heck, they've been observed in many other animal species!!
But on those toddlers, why would you assume that such moral traits to be casting doubt on the suggestion that they arise from the social group? Toddlers are humans, and it is to be expected that some traits are embedded in the genetic makeup. The oldest traits, those that we also observe in other animals should be found there.

(March 29, 2019 at 6:41 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:I try to understand why you're wrong.

Then we should have a good conversation!

(March 29, 2019 at 6:41 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:I never said you denied anything...
I left almost explicit that you add an extra layer of what I called magic. A layer that I consider to be unnecessary and unevidenced.

I don’t know what you mean by magic, I’m merely pointing out that reality possess elements like a moral order. I don’t consider the existence of such a reality, to be magical.

And I'm saying that those "elements" are probably simply patterns that humanity has ascribed to certain aspects of reality... not necessarily things underlying reality.
Given these two possibilities, I ask how can we determine if it's one or the other?

(March 29, 2019 at 6:41 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:Do you think the group that made the Holocaust thought it was right? It clearly wasn't a single individual with his own subjective set of morals.

The group that thought the holocaust was right, operated as truth denier, like holocaust deniers, and 9/11 truthers, not as people who had a different taste in fashion, or other subjective preferences. The Nazi’s relied on lies, delusions like scapegoating, to believe what they were doing was right. If it was just a matter of subjective opinions, or tastes, than such like delusions and lies would not have been needed to do what they did.

Lies?... Do you think people who believe that the Earth is flat are lying?
Maybe they have a warped perception of reality, relative to the common human, but I don't think they'd be lying.
I think with nazis it was just an extension of the "us vs them" innate way of thinking that we have in our tribal brains.

(March 29, 2019 at 6:41 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:Do you think most of the world of antiquity thought it was right to have slaves?

I think much of antiquity had varying views on slavery. Some viewed it as wrong, but necessary. And not all forms of slavery are equal. American slavery relied on the delusional belief, that blacks were less than human to justify it.

Again, us vs them.... they are worth less than us and so they can be exploited.
This is immoral to us, nowadays, but was mostly moral on those societies, even if some individuals found it immoral.
This is one area where the subjectivity of morality appears more clearly, I think.

(March 29, 2019 at 6:41 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:Have I said anything that remotely hints at a desire on my part to not believe? Where am I denying my experiences of reality? What excuses am I making?

So far, I’ll keep my judgement neutral when it comes to you.