As an aside, I don't believe most Christians would murder, rape, and steal if they lost their religion. I just wish I wouldn't keep running into Christians who think they would, and aren't shy about sharing that view. I don't believe those Christians are as bad as they think they are.

Hey, a person can hope...right? Thing is, Christianity has been broadcasting what it really is for centuries. Maybe we should just accept Christians dim view of themselves in the basis of two thousand years of misconduct even when they -do- believe?

(July 31, 2019 at 7:46 am)Grandizer Wrote: An ought was given, and it was given by society, by people just like you and me.

The basic error of many religious people is the notion that morality is invalid if it doesn't have some backing authority -- in their case dispensed by a Strong Man who imposes the rules on penalty of various things ranging from withdraw of favor and protection to eternal perdition. There is no particular reason to think this to be true, other than that they have been taught it from the cradle -- and, ironically, believing in imposed and enforced moral absolutes spares them having to make any morally difficult or ambiguous decisions, or to take personal responsibility for those decisions. The promise of the whole notion is that one will have moral clarity and the confidence of their own rightness. The fear and loathing they express around not having morality imposed from on high is of a scary, confusing world where "anything goes". This also feeds into their concepts of utter depravity and original sin; this makes them feel incapable of making good moral decisions that aren't externally imposed.

It's a great example of how the various memes that Christianity is constructed from interlock and interact. The whole idea is to rob you of your virtue, your moral agency, your ability to reason, and replace it with blind obeisance to ecclesiastical authority.

In point of fact, morality is valid because WE decide FOR OURSELVES what works and what doesn't. When you are free to add things to your life that bring value, and subtract things that don't, you ultimately find that how you treat yourself and others is intertwined, so you end up acting both in accordance with your own long range rational self interest, AND that of others.

In point of fact, morality has never been anything other than a work product of society that religion appropriates for itself, tweaks in some superficial ways to make it seem special, and then claims to be its inventor and protector.

(July 31, 2019 at 9:26 am)mordant Wrote:

(July 31, 2019 at 7:46 am)Grandizer Wrote: An ought was given, and it was given by society, by people just like you and me.

The basic error of many religious people is the notion that morality is invalid if it doesn't have some backing authority -- in their case dispensed by a Strong Man who imposes the rules on penalty of various things ranging from withdraw of favor and protection to eternal perdition. There is no particular reason to think this to be true, other than that they have been taught it from the cradle -- and, ironically, believing in imposed and enforced moral absolutes spares them having to make any morally difficult or ambiguous decisions, or to take personal responsibility for those decisions. The promise of the whole notion is that one will have moral clarity and the confidence of their own rightness. The fear and loathing they express around not having morality imposed from on high is of a scary, confusing world where "anything goes". This also feeds into their concepts of utter depravity and original sin; this makes them feel incapable of making good moral decisions that aren't externally imposed.

It's a great example of how the various memes that Christianity is constructed from interlock and interact. The whole idea is to rob you of your virtue, your moral agency, your ability to reason, and replace it with blind obeisance to ecclesiastical authority.

In point of fact, morality is valid because WE decide FOR OURSELVES what works and what doesn't. When you are free to add things to your life that bring value, and subtract things that don't, you ultimately find that how you treat yourself and others is intertwined, so you end up acting both in accordance with your own long range rational self interest, AND that of others.

In point of fact, morality has never been anything other than a work product of society that religion appropriates for itself, tweaks in some superficial ways to make it seem special, and then claims to be its inventor and protector.

Gae, Grandizer Vulcan and other believe right and wrong are objective truths, that things are intrinsically wrong in Grandizer words.

If true, then we don’t decide what’s right and wrong, anymore so than we decide the rotation of the sun, or the earth being round.

Right and wrong are matter of truths, and therefore not a matter of decision, but recognization when it comes to us.

It’s not because we decided that the holocaust is immoral that it is immoral, anymore so that it’s a our decision that makes the earth round. We recognize such truths, we don’t decide them, if it is as they say that right and wrong are matter of objective truth, are intrinsic truths.

What you seem to be suggesting is something along the lines of moral relativism, that morality is subjective, is product of extrinsic associations by one’s culture and society.

A view that’s not quite that popular today among atheists, has gone out of fashion like post modernism, but perhaps your views unlike the other atheists I’ve been arguing with so far, is clinging to that bygone era?

We decide whether or not our goals align with what we see as right or wrong, however.

I can know something is bad and -not- think that I shouldn’t do it. I can even consider that bad thing my duty.

Ratatatatatat.

---

Additionally, you may want to unclog your ears and listen before you put other people’s names in your mouth. As has been explained to you multiple times, a person can be s moral realist and also accept that descriptive moral subjectivity is true.

Two things can be true, after all, lol.

(July 31, 2019 at 11:03 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: We decide whether or not our goals align with what we see as right or wrong, however.

I can know something is bad and -not- think that I shouldn’t do it. I can even consider that bad thing my duty.

Ratatatatatat.

---

Additionally, you may want to unclog your ears and listen before you put other people’s names in your mouth. As has been explained to you multiple times, a person can be s moral realist and also accept that descriptive moral subjectivity is true.

Two things can be true, after all, lol.

So tell me what mordant is? Is he a moral realist too? A moral relativist? Etc...

Since you decided to answer a post asking him to clarify his moral views, perhaps you know this already?

Clearly you believe that there are things that are objectively right and objectively wrong, regardless of what you think about where the ought fits into it. The question is whether mordant agrees, since his post seemed to suggest that right and wrong are not objective truth, but determined by societies.

Dont know, bud.

What I do know is that whatever he tells you ....you will ignore ....and go on to make another shitpost in another thread and stuff his name into your mouth.

Just like you’ve done with anyone else who’s ever tried to explain moral theories for your benefit on these boards.

So is it morally good to do that? Is there an implied goal or ought not in your moral system? How come you’re fucking it up?

(July 31, 2019 at 11:33 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Dont know, bud.

What I do know is that whatever he tells you ....you will ignore ....and go on to make another shitpost in another thread and stuff his name into your mouth.

Just like you’ve done with anyone else who’s ever tried to explain moral theories for your benefit on these boards.

Everyone here is more or less explains their own particular moral theories, their views are not unified, even among those who might see themselves as realist. You and Vulcan, and Grandizer might have some commonalities, but there are also distinctions, hence why you might see me asking a question to them, that you feel you’ve already answered. Because I don’t view your answer as applicable to them, but I allow them to express their own voice and views, and be treated as individuals.

It’s also silly of you to accuse me of ignoring your views, just because I don’t agree with them.

-and it’s silly of you to pretend that you have even a basic comprehension of my views or the views of any others when you keep posting this garbage, lol.

You don’t know enough about moral theory to know what you’re disagreeing with, and not for lack of others trying to help you.

So stow that shit where you should have stowed your initial outburst.

Gae and Grandy are naturalists. I find non-naturalism more compelling. But I like naturalism too. I think the arguments for both are compelling. Hell. Moral nihilism even holds sway with me.

But, for the most part, I'm a non-naturalist. And if you ask me, I'll tell you exactly why. Grandy and Gae will also tell you (and have been telling you) why they're naturalists. I'll even give you a sound arguments for moral naturalism if you want one.

There is only one person in this thread who hasn't provided a sufficient or coherent explanation for his moral realism: Acrobat.