(March 29, 2019 at 9:28 am)pocaracas Wrote: How do social aspects fit into this simple definition?

I’m not sure what you mean by social aspects?

Society influences a variety of subjective elements, like fashion taste, movies, music etc… We can easily recognize that the reason we like certain things unique to our cultures as a result of our societies influence. Because our society finds certain things appealing, we also find them appealing.

This is not the same with morality. We don’t look at the Nazi the way we might look at a different societies taste in fashion. We don’t consider a person who likes torturing innocent babies just for fun regardless of the society or culture he was born into, as someone who just like’s a different band that you or I do. We recognize that there’s something truly wrong with such a person. Some sort of maladaption, delusion, etc..

We don’t perceive moral wrongness, the way we do societies subjective tastes in things, but as we do the wrongness of something false, something not true.

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

We perceive it as objective. I determine it’s objective because I perceive it as external to me, like the yellow of my wife’s dress, or chair in front of me.

Quote: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?

No, I recognize it as something recognized perceived by others as well. That they see the same thing I do, not that they shared some subjective preference with me. We are all in shared agreement that 1+1 =2. But the truth of 1+1 =2 is not dependent on our shared agreement. If we find ourselves in a society engaging in the holocaust, who though the holocaust is a good thing, doesn’t make it a good thing, in fact such a society would be one thats gone mad, is delusional, etc… unlike a society changing fashion tastes over time. This point seems to fail to register to you.

Quote: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.

I don’t think you’re taking your suggestions here to completion.The human inclination to morality, is to view it as objective not subjective. As matter of truth, not matter of personal tastes and preferences. There are atheists philsophers like Alex Rosenberg who are fully aware of this, but claim this is just an illusion. That we posses a variety of evolutionary components that lead us believe in objective morality, which doesn’t exist, and is just a mirage. That thing we experience here is real is not in fact real, the argument goes.

But it’s silly, the only reason I should assume what I experience is real here, is not real, by presupposing atheism is true. It can’t be true, or it would undermine  one’s atheism. It’s one’s atheism dictating what's real, then our experience and perceptions themselves.

Quote: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.

No I don’t think they’re lying, they’re delusional, just like the Nazis were delusional, believing a variety of false things to sustain their beliefs.

Quote:Again, us vs them.... they are worth less than us and so they can be exploited.

Which is a lie. The belief that black people were less human than whites, is a false belief. If they recognized the truth, that they are equals, they couldn’t have sustained the practice of slavery as they did. Evil is reliant on lies and deceptions to justify it, unlike Good, and unlike subjective preferences.

What we recognize, is that people very much do base their notions of right and wrong in context of societal norms.  This is descriptive moral relativism, not subjectivism, and it's true even if there is a valid moral objectivity.

It's also true of ourselves including any moral realist.  

In any case, your notion that this is somehow a product of atheism is fatally misconceived.  Relative  moral systems have historically been based in god beliefs, specifically the belief in gods subjective moral system, and objective moral systems need no reference to gods..regardless of whether or not gods exist.

To use your example...subhumanity was a false belief. What do you need to establish that this is so other than a reference to common humanity?

(March 29, 2019 at 10:32 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: In any case, your notion that this is somehow a product of atheism is fatally misconceived.  Relative  moral systems have historically been based in god beliefs, specifically the belief in gods subjective moral system, and objective moral systems need no reference to gods..regardless of whether or not gods exist.

I'm merely pointing out that the reason why many atheists reject moral objectivism, is because of their atheism. Clearly you're not included in this assessment, since you agree that moral objectivism is true. Whether one can reconcile moral objectivism and atheism is beside the point here.

Quote:To use your example...subhumanity was a false belief.  What do you need to establish that this is so other than a reference to common humanity?

That's sufficient enough. In recognition of a common humanity, a man can recognize that he ought not to treat others as less than him, but as equals. Just like when I ask my nephew when he's done something mean to somebody, how would you like it if someone treated you that way, it causes him to reflect and aids in him recognizing what he did was wrong. You don't need to appeal, or believe in God to recognize certain things are wrong, like torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong.

(March 29, 2019 at 10:22 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 9:28 am)pocaracas Wrote: How do social aspects fit into this simple definition?

I’m not sure what you mean by social aspects?

Society influences a variety of subjective elements, like fashion taste, movies, music etc… We can easily recognize that the reason we like certain things unique to our cultures as a result of our societies influence. Because our society finds certain things appealing, we also find them appealing.

This is not the same with morality. We don’t look at the Nazi the way we might look at a different societies taste in fashion. We don’t consider a person who likes torturing innocent babies just for fun regardless of the society or culture he was born into, as someone who just like’s a different band that you or I do. We recognize that there’s something truly wrong with such a person. Some sort of maladaption, delusion, etc..

We don’t perceive moral wrongness, the way we do societies subjective tastes in things, but as we do the wrongness of something false, something not true.

No, we perceive moral wrongness as something more lasting, more fundamental... but ultimately connected with the survival of the social group.
We generally perceive the killing of a fellow human as morally wrong, because it goes against the survival of the group. However, when it goes against the survival of another group, the wrongness fades somewhat. That's the loophole that the Nazis exploited, I'd say. Considering a subset of the population as a different group brings forth the "us vs them" behavior.

(March 29, 2019 at 10:22 am)Acrobat Wrote:

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

We perceive it as objective. I determine it’s objective because I perceive it as external to me, like the yellow of my wife’s dress, or chair in front of me.

External to you... but is it external to the whole of humanity? Is there such a thing as morality in the absence of humanity? Or rather, in the absence of any social species!
I'd wager that no. Morality applies to a social group.
For species that are not social... and I'm going for an obviously not social example... like an ameba, do you suppose that morality would somehow apply?

(March 29, 2019 at 10:22 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote: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?

No, I recognize it as something recognized perceived by others as well. That they see the same thing I do, not that they shared some subjective preference with me. We are all in shared agreement that 1+1 =2. But the truth of 1+1 =2 is not dependent on our shared agreement. If we find ourselves in a society engaging in the holocaust, who though the holocaust is a good thing, doesn’t make it a good thing, in fact such a society would be one thats gone mad, is delusional, etc… unlike a society changing fashion tastes over time. This point seems to fail to register to you.

What does 1+1 mean in the absence of a conscience that keeps a tally on an amount?

Those others that perceive the same moral wrongness as you... could they not have been the recipients a moral code handed down through genetics? A moral code that you then perceive as exdernal, for you cannot consciously account for its origin?

(March 29, 2019 at 10:22 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote: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.

I don’t think you’re taking your suggestions here to completion.The human inclination to morality, is to view it as objective not subjective. As matter of truth, not matter of personal tastes and preferences. There are atheists philsophers like Alex Rosenberg who are fully aware of this, but claim this is just an illusion. That we posses a variety of evolutionary components that lead us believe in objective morality, which doesn’t exist, and is just a mirage. That thing we experience here is real is not in fact real, the argument goes.

Such illusion only comes about due to the failure to consciously determine where that morality comes from.
To a particular individual, it feels as though it's always been there, given it's genetic nature. But it can be easily an evolved trait.
Much like the friendliness in dogs and, more recently, foxes.

(March 29, 2019 at 10:22 am)Acrobat Wrote: But it’s silly, the only reason I should assume what I experience is real here, is not real, by presupposing atheism is true. It can’t be true, or it would undermine  one’s atheism. It’s one’s atheism dictating what's real, then our experience and perceptions themselves.

Sucks to be you!
It's philosophically important to discern where these drives originate, or you may end up with erroneous conclusions.
Not all that is intuitive is accurate.

(March 29, 2019 at 10:22 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote: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.

No I don’t think they’re lying, they’re delusional, just like the Nazis were delusional, believing a variety of false things to sustain their beliefs.

But the truth value of the statement "the earth is flat" is very near the 0% I mentioned earlier...
The statement does not align with reality, it is thus false.
But those people are convinced that they have the truth value at 100%... Delusional, yes, that's a good word to describe it.
Curiously, I've seen it used to describe those who attribute a 100% truth value to "there is a god".

(March 29, 2019 at 10:22 am)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:Again, us vs them.... they are worth less than us and so they can be exploited.

Which is a lie. The belief that black people were less human than whites, is a false belief. If they recognized the truth, that they are equals, they couldn’t have sustained the practice of slavery as they did. Evil is reliant on lies and deceptions to justify it, unlike Good, and unlike subjective preferences.

Why do you anthropomorphize Evil and Good?

(March 29, 2019 at 11:37 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 10:32 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: In any case, your notion that this is somehow a product of atheism is fatally misconceived.  Relative  moral systems have historically been based in god beliefs, specifically the belief in gods subjective moral system, and objective moral systems need no reference to gods..regardless of whether or not gods exist.

I'm merely pointing out that the reason why many atheists reject moral objectivism, is because of their atheism. Clearly you're not included in this assessment, since you agree that moral objectivism is true. Whether one can reconcile moral objectivism and atheism is beside the point here.

Probably more to do with the idiotic things that believers call "objective morality" than the simple fact that they don't believe in gods.  

Not believing in a god doesn't necessitate, lend support, or even suggest a particular stance on morality.  I've been having this convo on the boards for awhile.  The notion that atheists actually do reject moral realism isn't entirely accurate in the first place.  You've been trying to suggest as much with your own comments.  

So, you know, make up your mind, do atheists accept moral realism and just not know it, or do they reject it because hurr dur their atheism?

Quote:That's sufficient enough. In recognition of a common humanity, a man can recognize that he ought not to treat others as less than him, but as equals. Just like when I ask my nephew when he's done something mean to somebody, how would you like it if someone treated you that way, it causes him to reflect and aids in him recognizing what he did was wrong. You don't need to appeal, or believe in God to recognize certain things are wrong, like torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong.

It certainly seems to help to believe in a god to think otherwise though, doesn't it? 

Particularly when commanded to do so by a god or justified by some gods inherent claims to ethnocentric supremacy or possession and gifting of land, lol.

(March 29, 2019 at 11:54 am)pocaracas Wrote: External to you... but is it external to the whole of humanity? Is there such a thing as morality in the absence of humanity? Or rather, in the absence of any social species!
I'd wager that no. Morality applies to a social group.
For species that are not social... and I'm going for an obviously not social example... like an ameba, do you suppose that morality would somehow apply?

What does 1+1 mean in the absence of a conscience that keeps a tally on an amount?

Might as well ask what does reality, or truth mean in absence of conscience, self aware creatures who acknowledge and recognize it? Does truth cease to exist, absent of conscience observers to acknowledge it?

Does 1 and 1 still equal two, if there’s no one left do add them?

Let’s ask another question, if some objective observer was trying to categorize things the human species perceives as objective truths, like 1+1 =2, the roundness of a ball, the existence of the chair in my room etc, and subjective preferences, like our affinity to a particular band, or food, etc…

Which category do you think morality would fall into? Would statements like torturing innocent babies is wrong, resemble or be synonymous with statements of personal taste, like pepperoni pizza taste bad, or more like 1+1 = 4 is wrong?

It shouldn’t be too surprising that our moral perceptions don’t resemble our subjective taste, but rather objective truths. Only compounded by the fact of immoralities reliance on lies and deceptions, the resemblance of moral arguments to arguments about truth, etc….

Quote:Those others that perceive the same moral wrongness as you... could they not have been the recipients a moral code handed down through genetics? A moral code that you then perceive as exdernal, for you cannot consciously account for its origin?

Or our genetics gave us the tools to recognize right and wrong, much like they’ve given us the tools to recognize what’s true and false. Without an external truth, there’s nothing for these tools to recognize or discern.

Secondly it makes little sense to locate a moral code in our genetics. Because if strictly speaking about biology here, we’d be merely appealing to biological sensations, ultimately describing our feelings so to say. Saying torturing innocent babies just for fun, would be a mere description of the negative feelings this idea illicits.

But very few people, including atheists would suggesting that all that’s wrong with torturing innocent babies just for fun is simply that they don’t like it, or equivocate such statements, as no more than stating they don’t like pizza.

As far as origins are concerned, I don’t need to account for the origins of the chair in my room, to acknowledge it’s existence independent of my mind perceiving it, anymore so that I need to account for origins of moral reality, to acknowledge it’s existence.

Quote:But the truth value of the statement "the earth is flat" is very near the 0% I mentioned earlier...
The statement does not align with reality, it is thus false.

The truth value of the statement “torturing innocent babies for fun is morally good” is very near 0%. This statement does not align with reality, it is thus false.

If someone here claims that torturing innocent babies just for fun is a good thing, they would be no less wrong, than some who claim the earth is flat. In fact he’d likely be more delusional than a person who thinks the earth is flat.

Quote:Why do you anthropomorphize Evil and Good?

I don’t see my previous statement as anthropomorphizing evil and good.

I’m merely pointing out that when people perform evil, they’re often reliant on lies and delusions to justify it, such as blacks are less than white, that the jews were responsible for all the ailments of german society, etc….They have to resort to things like dehumanization, scapegoating etc… in order to conceal the truth. They tend to be maladapted, unhinged, etc.. Which they wouldn’t have to do if it’s merely subjective. No false justification is needed to defend why I like chocolate, the fact that I like it is sufficient enough.

---

(March 29, 2019 at 11:57 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Not believing in a god doesn't necessitate, lend support, or even suggest a particular stance on morality.  I've been having this convo on the boards for awhile.  The notion that atheists actually do reject moral realism isn't entirely accurate in the first place.  You've been trying to suggest as much with your own comments.  

Some atheists subscribe to moral realism, some reject it.

Quote:So, you know, make up your mind, do atheists accept moral realism and just not know it, or do they reject it because hurr dur their atheism?

Some do some don't.

Quote:It certainly seems to help to believe in a god to think otherwise though, doesn't it? 

Particularly when commanded to do so by a god or justified by some gods inherent claims to ethnocentric supremacy or possession and gifting of land, lol.

Whatever you have in mind when you think of the term God, and what I view as God, are not one and the same. Yours seems to rely on some fundie evangelical conception of God, which I don't share. Hence why I don't even bother appealing to or mentioning God, in most of my posts at all. You should learn to stick with what I've said, rather than ascribing beliefs and view points to me that I have not expressed. I have little interest in wasting my time on strawmen.

I have a more expansive list of gods in mind than your billowy nothing or the fundies ridiculous something.  It's simply a fact of human behavior and history that, among all of the things that might impair or completely eradicate an othrwise functional moral agency...the compelling nature of god belief ranks high.  

Similarly, it is a fact that the only way that a persons atheism can inform their position on a hypothetical morality is if that position requires the existence of a god, which moral realism does not, despite the faithfuls constant mewling that it just has to...somehow.

Your own assertion that atheism is the reason that some people reject moral realism can only stand in light of this explicit or implicit claim.

Quote:I'm merely pointing out that the reason why many atheists reject moral objectivism, is because of their atheism.

-and so, in this, you are plain and simply wrong. Even if you could find an atheist to ape your assertion..that would only demonstrate that they are also plain and simply wrong.

Something is misinforming them, but not their atheism. They would be in a position where they did not understand or could not imagine moral realism without a god..and, gee willikers...what on earth might that be?

(March 29, 2019 at 1:52 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: It's simply a fact of human behavior and history that, among all of the things that might impair or completely eradicate an othrwise functional moral agency...the compelling nature of god belief ranks high.  

That’s baloney. We have no real reason to think people would have behaved more morally historically if they just didn’t believe in God or religion. That’s just some feel good atheist fairytale. There’s simply nothing morally motivating about a lack of belief.

Now perhaps religious beliefs have some special quality to motivate people into actions, that non-religious beliefs are incapable of inspiring or replacing. Like motiving people to fly planes into building, or sacrifice their life for a worthy cause like the Civil Rights movement, or abolitionism. But the idea of such motivating capacity is exclusive to immoral actions, is more a product of your cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias than anything else.

Quote:Similarly, it is a fact that the only way that a persons atheism can inform their position on a hypothetical morality is if that position requires the existence of a god, which moral realism does not, despite the faithfuls constant mewling that it just has to...somehow.

Sure if an atheist, sees conceptions like the existence of a moral reality, an arc of a moral universe, of moral laws that exist as “intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.” “a good that’s the source of all things right and true, etc…”, as beliefs dependent on some form of theism, then it should go without saying that their atheism requires a rejection of these very things. Believing in them undermines their disbelief.

Some atheists view the existence of a moral reality, of reality possessing moral properties, as teleological, and telelogy implies the existence of God, and since God does not exist, all teleological aspects of reality are to be denied or rejected as false.

Now you may not be such an unbeliever, but that’s beside the point.

(March 29, 2019 at 2:30 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 1:52 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: It's simply a fact of human behavior and history that, among all of the things that might impair or completely eradicate an othrwise functional moral agency...the compelling nature of god belief ranks high.  

That’s baloney. We have no real reason to think people would have behaved more morally historically if they just didn’t believe in God or religion. That’s just some feel good atheist fairytale. There’s simply nothing morally motivating about a lack of belief.

It doesn't matter if there's anything morally motivating about a lack of belief (and that sort of tanks your thesis, but hey, wtvs) - I'm suggesting that god beliefs are very compelling for those that hold them.  

Do you disagree?  Doesn't seem like you do.  

Quote:Now perhaps religious beliefs have some special quality to motivate people into actions, that non-religious beliefs are incapable of inspiring or replacing. Like motiving people to fly planes into building, or sacrifice their life for a worthy cause like the Civil Rights movement, or abolitionism. But the idea of such motivating capacity is exclusive to immoral actions, is more a product of your cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias than anything else.

See above, in the comments you quoted...."among all of the things"?  Do you see anything above about the impossibility of god beliefs to motivate otherwise? Any indication of exclusivity of -any- kind? No, you don't. Because it isn't there.

Carry on.

Quote:

Quote:Similarly, it is a fact that the only way that a persons atheism can inform their position on a hypothetical morality is if that position requires the existence of a god, which moral realism does not, despite the faithfuls constant mewling that it just has to...somehow.

Sure if an atheist, sees conceptions like the existence of a moral reality, an arc of a moral universe, of moral laws that exist as “intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.” “a good that’s the source of all things right and true, etc…”, as beliefs dependent on some form of theism, then it should go without saying that their atheism requires a rejection of these very things. Believing in them undermines their disbelief.

Some atheists view the existence of a moral reality, of reality possessing moral properties, as teleological, and telelogy implies the existence of God, and since God does not exist, all teleological aspects of reality are to be denied or rejected as false.

Now you may not be such an unbeliever, but that’s beside the point.

-and since moral realism doesn't actually require the existence of a god..then they would be plain and simply wrong, just as you are plain and simply wrong.

Why is it, do you think, some atheists™ may be plain and simply wrong in the same way that the faithful are plain and simply wrong, the same way that you are plain and simply wrong?

At work.

*Raises appendage*

Uhm.... but aren't numbers (And numbering systems) , like other 'Languages' just subjective?

Such that.... when those that use a numbering or language system die out completely... then doesn't the systems they agreed upon also cease to exist?

To the extent that, effectivly, they are nonexistent?

Heck, did they even exist before/until said societies/cultures just happened to agree/reach a concensus on their values/meanings in the first place?

Hope my ideas are grokkable by others.