(August 11, 2019 at 11:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Acrobat, I don't believe in a Platonic good, so comparing it to the sun in your analogies is pointless because I don't accept the analogy.

Good is purely abstract, there is no physical object to which we can point to and say "That is the good".

That doesn't mean that therefore good must be based on personal tastes.

I agree, there is no physical object we can point to and say that is the good. 

If the moral goodness and wrongness of things can be objective truths, whatever space these objective truths occupy, it's immaterial. 

In order for it to be an objective truth, it can't just be an idea in my head, but one out there.

All the world exists as picture in our head, yet we distinguish a world of our imagination, and the world that's out there. The beach I'm sitting at, is just in my imagination, as I dream of warmer weather and a vacation, while the room I'm seeing now, is not. This room is here, a part of reality. 

Some atheists would say that  the good you and I see is just our imagination, if we mistake it for out there, we're just seeing an illusion of objectivity, but not truly something objective. Is that your view?

---

(August 12, 2019 at 12:08 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 11:12 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Our perception of the sun is product of our intuition, and sensory organs, etc. built and developed through millennia of evolution. Good and bad are no more a product of our evolution, then the sun is a product of our evolution, only the components involved in our perceptions here, intuitive and otherwise. 

If good and bad are not ultimately a description of our likes a dislike, a description of our internal biological state, then yes they are out there, not in here.

---

As opposed to subjectively wrong? Because wrongness is not a description of our likes and dislikes, saying it's morally bad to torture babies just for fun, isn't equivalent to saying my dinner tasted bad. I'm not describing an internal biological state, but rather something external to myself, to say it's objectively wrong, is like saying my wife's dress is yellow, as opposed to pretty.

Lol, you wanna take a fourth stab at it, Acro? You look exponentially more foolish every time you evade the question. I mean, really. This should be easy. Babies, ffs. Here we go. #4’s a charm:

Why is it objectively wrong to torture babes?

*popcorn*

Hum, let's try answering it the way someone here might. 

Because harming innocents babies cause unnecessary suffering, is harmful for both the health and wellbeing of the child and society. 

Then it could be asked. why is causing unnecessary suffering, harming the wellbeing of society, objectively wrong?

Eventually at the end of that chain, wrongness becomes like the color of the thing being described, as opposed to the way it makes us feel.

(August 12, 2019 at 12:16 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 11:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Acrobat, I don't believe in a Platonic good, so comparing it to the sun in your analogies is pointless because I don't accept the analogy.

Good is purely abstract, there is no physical object to which we can point to and say "That is the good".

That doesn't mean that therefore good must be based on personal tastes.

I agree, there is no physical object we can point to and say that is the good. 

If the moral goodness and wrongness of things can be objective truths, whatever space these objective truths occupy, it's immaterial. 

In order for it to be an objective truth, it can't just be an idea in my head, but one out there.

All the world exists as picture in our head, yet we distinguish a world of our imagination, and the world that's out there. The beach I'm sitting at, is just in my imagination, as I dream of warmer weather and a vacation, while the room I'm seeing now, is not. This room is here, a part of reality. 

Some atheists would say that  the good you and I see is just our imagination, if we mistake it for out there, we're just seeing an illusion of objectivity, but not truly something objective. Is that your view?

It's out there implies it's physically there. But there is no "out there" for that thing you call the good. I don't know what you're asking anymore. What illusion? Some acts truly are good or bad, regardless of how we feel. Something about the act is what makes it good or bad. If it harms, then we're generally going to intuit it as bad. If it promotes flourishing, we're going to generally intuit it as good. Nothing to do with your God, and nothing to do with personal feelings. We intuit the way we do because mainly evolution.

---

(August 12, 2019 at 12:16 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 11:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Acrobat, I don't believe in a Platonic good, so comparing it to the sun in your analogies is pointless because I don't accept the analogy.

Good is purely abstract, there is no physical object to which we can point to and say "That is the good".

That doesn't mean that therefore good must be based on personal tastes.

I agree, there is no physical object we can point to and say that is the good. 

If the moral goodness and wrongness of things can be objective truths, whatever space these objective truths occupy, it's immaterial. 

In order for it to be an objective truth, it can't just be an idea in my head, but one out there.

All the world exists as picture in our head, yet we distinguish a world of our imagination, and the world that's out there. The beach I'm sitting at, is just in my imagination, as I dream of warmer weather and a vacation, while the room I'm seeing now, is not. This room is here, a part of reality. 

Some atheists would say that  the good you and I see is just our imagination, if we mistake it for out there, we're just seeing an illusion of objectivity, but not truly something objective. Is that your view?

---

(August 12, 2019 at 12:08 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, you wanna take a fourth stab at it, Acro? You look exponentially more foolish every time you evade the question. I mean, really. This should be easy. Babies, ffs. Here we go. #4’s a charm:

Why is it objectively wrong to torture babes?

*popcorn*

Hum, let's try answering it the way someone here might. 

Because harming innocents babies cause unnecessary suffering, is harmful for both the health and wellbeing of the child and society. 

Then it could be asked. why is causing unnecessary suffering, harming the wellbeing of society, objectively wrong?

Eventually at the end of that chain, wrongness becomes like the color of the thing being described, as opposed to the way it makes us feel.

So what makes unnecessary suffering objectively wrong then? God? In what world is unnecessary suffering reasonably a good thing?

There’s no requirement that “the good” be immaterial on account of it not being a singular object, like a particular rock.

A compound natural property fits the bill just fine and aligns itself with those things we point to about some act as objective justification.

Suffering, for example. Things really do (or really don’t) suffer. Suffering is “out there”, and a natural property of creatures capable of suffering. One thing in a set of things we identify as “bad”.

(August 12, 2019 at 12:16 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 12, 2019 at 12:08 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, you wanna take a fourth stab at it, Acro? You look exponentially more foolish every time you evade the question. I mean, really. This should be easy. Babies, ffs. Here we go. #4’s a charm:

Why is it objectively wrong to torture babes?

*popcorn*

Hum, let's try answering it the way someone here might. 

Because harming innocents babies cause unnecessary suffering, is harmful for both the health and wellbeing of the child and society.

“Like someone here might”? I don’t want you to answer for what you think someone else here thinks. I want you to answer for yourself. We’re going on round five now of the same question. Are you going to keep tap dancing?:

Why is it objectively wrong to torture babies, Acro?

I imagine the cognitive dissonance must be pretty uncomfortable right about now.

He’d have to possess a level of comprehension beyond anything expressed in any of his posts on this subject to experience dissonance.

You don’t feel dissonance when you can’t understand why your many ideas conflict with each other and reality.

(August 12, 2019 at 12:34 am)Grandizer Wrote: It's out there implies it's physically there.

I'm not a naturalist, so I don't share that view, I'm of the opinion that what my mind sees as out there is out there, and what it perceives as in here is in here, regardless of whether it's physical or not, absent of any compelling reason to doubt a perception.

Quote:But there is no "out there" for that thing you call the good. I don't know what you're asking anymore. What illusion? Some acts truly are good or bad, regardless of how we feel. Something about the act is what makes it good or bad. If it harms, then we're generally going to intuit it as bad. If it promotes flourishing, we're going to generally intuit it as good. Nothing to do with your God, and nothing to do with personal feelings. We intuit the way we do because mainly evolution.

I agree there's a badness to harm, and goodness to promoting flourishing. But as indicated previously goodness and badness here are like stating the colors of these things, that's what I mean by it's truly good and truly bad here, that I am describing something objective, something out there, even if immaterial.

You may not agree with that, but you seem to reject that suggestion that goodness and badness here are an expression of your feelings, that badness just means your dislike and displeasure of harm, and goodness just indicated your liking, pleasure in the promoting of flourishing.

As a result you seem to be floating in some sort of limbo between the two.

Neither natural nor non natural realism requires a god, so, your distinction here has no bearing on how an atheist can account for their morality.

That you think others must be floating in limbo, that it seems this way to you is....hilariously, a strong reason to doubt your perception.

(August 12, 2019 at 12:57 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 12, 2019 at 12:34 am)Grandizer Wrote: It's out there implies it's physically there.

I'm not a naturalist, so I don't share that view, I'm of the opinion that what my mind sees as out there is out there, and what it perceives as in here is in here, regardless of whether it's physical or not, absent of any compelling reason to doubt a perception.

Quote:But there is no "out there" for that thing you call the good. I don't know what you're asking anymore. What illusion? Some acts truly are good or bad, regardless of how we feel. Something about the act is what makes it good or bad. If it harms, then we're generally going to intuit it as bad. If it promotes flourishing, we're going to generally intuit it as good. Nothing to do with your God, and nothing to do with personal feelings. We intuit the way we do because mainly evolution.

I agree there's a badness to harm, and goodness to promoting flourishing. But as indicated previously goodness and badness here are like stating the colors of these things, that's what I mean by it's truly good and truly bad here, that I am describing something objective, something out there, even if immaterial.

You may not agree with that, but you seem to reject that suggestion that goodness and badness here are an expression of your feelings, that badness just means your dislike and displeasure of harm, and goodness just indicated your liking, pleasure in the promoting of flourishing.

As a result you seem to be floating in some sort of limbo between the two.

It's not about like or dislike. It's wrong because ... Look what it does. What it does we reasonably consider to be bad. There is nothing to suggest that it is good.

I can consider something to be bad while sadistically liking it. I can consider something to be good while cynically being against it.

Anywho, lol. One of the interesting wrinkles since these positions have been staked out.

Non natural realism has always operated on the notion of “the bad” being an abstract ideal. Apprehended and held by the mind but physically unattached to any natural object.

Today, it’s becoming more and more difficult to stake out exactly what the difference is between an idea and a natural object. The former looking a lot like a description of the latter held in state, in a brain. A flawed description of the position of so many tumblers in a biological lock.

It’s become unclear what is supposed to be non natural in non natural realism. That’s the main failure of the semantics in contemporary moral theory. One of the things that lead to it’s abandonment in favor of natural realism.

As a position, it may reduce to nothing more than our confusion and incomplete internal model of our own brains operation. That wouldn’t make it any less accurate a description of our experience if moral reasoning, even though it would necessitate it’s failure as a metaphysical position.