(August 12, 2019 at 12:43 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 12, 2019 at 12:16 am)Acrobat Wrote: 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 attempted to answer your question several ways, I don't see myself dancing, I just find myself a bit confused as to what it is you're asking, and perhaps it has something to do with a difference in how you and i use the term objective wrong.

When I say x is objectively wrong, I'm saying that wrongness of x is not a description of my internal state, like the prettiness of my wife's dress,  but an external reality like the yellow of my wife's dress.

So the way your question comes across, is like asking me why is my wife's dress objectively yellow?

(August 12, 2019 at 1:15 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 12, 2019 at 12:43 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: “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 attempted to answer your question several ways, I don't see myself dancing, I just find myself a bit confused as to what it is you're asking, and perhaps it has something to do with a difference in how you and i use the term objective wrong.

When I say x is objectively wrong, I'm saying that wrongness of x is not a description of my internal state, like the prettiness of my wife's dress,  but an external reality like the yellow of my wife's dress.

So the way your question comes across, is like asking me why is my wife's dress objectively yellow?

Your wife's dress is yellow because God. Duh.

I'm curious though, how exactly does "yellow" exist independent of the object that is of what we consider to be yellow color? I can't make sense out of that.

The wife’s dress is yellow because “god” is actually a perfect example.

If the reason that something was objectively yellow was god, then yellow would be unavailable to atheists. Unless the reason that something is bad is god, then bad is available to atheists.

If god -is- the reason that something is bad, then bad is arbitrary and subjective. A fact about an individuals nature or predispositions.

Bad, then, would still be available to atheists, as they can have their own nature and predispositions.

Like I said pages ago. It’s the atheist who has options when it comes to moral theories, realist or otherwise, not the believer.

(August 12, 2019 at 1:01 am)Grandizer Wrote:

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



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.

Yes I acknowledge, that both of us agree that Good and Bad are not about likes and dislikes. 

The goodness of something, nor the badness of something exist purely as things in our head, but rather out there, as objective truths.

That we can acknowledge even while desiring to do the antithesis of them. 

Goodness and Badness of x, is more like saying the roundness or yellowness of X, or the light or darkness of X, than the disgustingness or prettiness of x, or the taste of x, or the feeling of x.

---

(August 12, 2019 at 1:44 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: If god -is- the reason that something is bad, then bad is arbitrary and subjective.  A fact about an individuals nature or predispositions

Good or in particular the absence of good is the reason that something is bad, like Light or in particular the absence of light is the reason why something is dark.

Quote:Good or in particular the absence of good is the reason that something is bad

Suppose that nothing good happens in a particular place for a particular period of time.  Does that mean that everything that DOES happen in that locale is necessarily bad?  Couldn't it be that occurrences take place that are neither good nor bad, but simply inconsequential?

Boru

(August 12, 2019 at 7:08 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Good or in particular the absence of good is the reason that something is bad

Suppose that nothing good happens in a particular place for a particular period of time.  Does that mean that everything that DOES happen in that locale is necessarily bad?  Couldn't it be that occurrences take place that are neither good nor bad, but simply inconsequential?

Boru

That's a good a question. But it's hard to imagine what sort of locals inhabit this place? 

The question also seems to operate on a consequentialist view of good and bad. 

If the locals desire not do any harm, to steal, hurt, lie to anyone, this in my view would be a good thing. 

Where as if the locals desired to do all sorts of bad things, like steal from their neighbors, but just haven't had the right opportunity to act up on it, then this would be a pretty bad place, even though they haven't acted upon their desires yet.

(August 12, 2019 at 7:47 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 12, 2019 at 7:08 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Suppose that nothing good happens in a particular place for a particular period of time.  Does that mean that everything that DOES happen in that locale is necessarily bad?  Couldn't it be that occurrences take place that are neither good nor bad, but simply inconsequential?

Boru

That's a good a question. But it's hard to imagine what sort of locals inhabit this place? 

The question also seems to operate on a consequentialist view of good and bad. 

If the locals desire not do any harm, to steal, hurt, lie to anyone, this in my view would be a good thing. 

Where as if the locals desired to do all sorts of bad things, like steal from their neighbors, but just haven't had the right opportunity to act up on it, then this would be a pretty bad place, even though they haven't acted upon their desires yet.

How very Orwellian of you.

Boru

(August 12, 2019 at 6:44 am)Acrobat Wrote: Goodness and Badness of x, is more like saying the roundness or yellowness of X, or the light or darkness of X, than the disgustingness or prettiness of x, or the taste of x, or the feeling of x.

I'm pondering how to get past the current stuckness of this conversation.....

Maybe we could address some other traditional questions about the Good, and let people hate those instead. 

For example, do a good medicine, a good painting, and a good person, have some quality in common? Is the goodness of each of these something they share, or is each good in its own way? 

I think that Plato and Dante would both say that each of these things "participates" in the Good in its own way, reflecting or embodying some aspect of the entire Good. And pointing us eventually to the highest Good. 

Probably your opponents here will disagree with that. 

I haven't worked on this much, but I think we can make a case that each of those things does share a mutual type of goodness, if we define goodness as that which encourages human thriving. A good medicine obviously makes people healthier, and health is better for thriving. A good painting, in this view, would be one which enriches the lives of those who see it -- challenging, surprising, delighting. The painting's goodness would be less a practical goodness, nearer to autotelic, but is still good because of the affect it has on human life. A good person is good in relation to others -- bonum est diffusivum sui. It would be hard to say that a person who was only good to himself was very good. 

So given all that, I do think that the goodness would be a quality in the object. It would often be perceptible to us. Of course there would be disagreement and mistakes -- a medicine might prove to have unknown side effects, for example. A movie which at first strikes us as good might tend overall to flatter its audience and make people stupider. (A lot of them do.) 

Though your interlocutors here continue to think of God decreeing the Good like laws, theologians would say that God is the sum total of all the good aspects of all the things in the world (plus infinity). This is what Dante says. So you are correct, I think, to say that God couldn't reverse goodness and declare by fiat that the Holocaust was actually good. Because there is no possible world in which genocide encourages human thriving.

Quote:Though your interlocutors here continue to think of God decreeing the Good like laws, theologians would say that God is the sum total of all the good aspects of all the things in the world (plus infinity). This is what Dante says. So you are correct, I think, to say that God couldn't reverse goodness and declare by fiat that the Holocaust was actually good. Because there is no possible world in which genocide encourages human thriving.

If this is a description of God, then goodness exists independent of God and we don't need God to be good.

As to the Holocaust, I can think of situations where genocide encourages human thriving, but that's not your point (at least, I hope it isn't).  If God can't declare by fiat that the Holocaust was a good thing, then there is no point whatsoever to God as either a source of or a conduit for moral behaviour: actions are good or bad irrespective of the what God has to say about it or God's nature.

Boru

(August 12, 2019 at 7:49 am)Belaqua Wrote: Though your interlocutors here continue to think of God decreeing the Good like laws, theologians would say that God is the sum total of all the good aspects of all the things in the world (plus infinity). This is what Dante says. So you are correct, I think, to say that God couldn't reverse goodness and declare by fiat that the Holocaust was actually good. Because there is no possible world in which genocide encourages human thriving.

Which works quite well without any God (in the meaningful sense of the term).

Euthyphro's dilemma yet to be resolved.