(July 8, 2024 at 1:57 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I don't agree with your theory of rights.   Pro-lifers grant fetuses the right to live.  Noone expects the fetus to burst forth from the mother's belly to defend its right like an alien chestburster.

“Foetal alien chest-buster image” just had ChatGPT image generator moan at me about guidelines

(July 8, 2024 at 12:09 pm)Lucian Wrote: I know you are taking a break from debating, but a question that I am just interested in your answer, not going to debate it
Do you think it would be possible for a society to function if all laws were thought to be mere social contracts where the government is given power to enforce them to make the country function well. This would be as opposed to believing the laws are based on objective morality? Firmly in the realm of thought experiment as I don’t think it could happen that the majority of people came to that decision. Not even sure there is a sensible answer to the question, but interested anyway

Why stop there - I think it's possible for a society to function with a legal system void of any moral content.  

So, right off the bat..no government is premised on any objective moral content because there isn't any to be had - not my opinion..but a valid one.  Is there some particular reason, then, to climb down the metaethical ladder to relativist moral content?  What the people want may not be what's good for them, slavery comes to mind.  Okay, how about subjectivism?  Kings tried that.  Didn't end well.  Good and well, here, referring only to outcomes - not normative content.  To the utilitarian benefit in the context of the social construct.  

You could play with these variables.  If slavery or monarchy actually went well, for example, there would be a utilitarian argument for them even if the perpetrators themselves saw a moral argument against.  We saw this play out in history over the periods in question - the kings labor...the white mans burden... etc.  This is the kind of granularity splitting morality and legality provides.  It's not novel in the content of laws or the establishment of governments.

I think it looks otherwise because such governments have a vested interest in making moral appeals regardless of whether or not such appeals are genuine in order to keep the mob from killing them.

(July 8, 2024 at 2:10 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Why stop there - I think it's possible for a society to function with a legal system void of any moral content.  

So, right off the bat..no government is premised on any objective moral content because there isn't any to be had - not my opinion..but a valid one.  Is there some particular reason, then, to climb down the metaethical ladder to relativist moral content?  What the people want may not be what's good for them, slavery comes to mind.  Okay, how about subjectivism?  Kings tried that.  Didn't end well.  Good and well, here, referring only to outcomes - not normative content.  To the utilitarian benefit in the context of the social construct.  

You could play with these variables.  If slavery or monarchy actually went well, for example, there would be a utilitarian argument for them even if the perpetrators themselves saw a moral argument against.  We saw this play out in history over the periods in question - the kings labor...the white mans burden... etc.  This is the kind of granularity splitting morality and legality provides.  It's not novel in the content of laws or the establishment of governments.

I think it looks otherwise because such governments have a vested interest in making moral appeals regardless of whether or not such appeals are genuine in order to keep the mob from killing them.

For the most part I am not disagreeing with your line of argument over the last posts. Nice to be on the same page 
I don’t think a lot of laws are about morality at all, that said… I do think some are. Those are ones that worry me, eg. laws against homosexual behavior etc. I could be wrong in my understanding of these, and I think in the scope of all the laws they are perhaps the outliers

(July 8, 2024 at 1:57 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I don't agree with your theory of rights.   Pro-lifers grant fetuses the right to live.  Noone expects the fetus to burst forth from the mother's belly to defend its right like an alien chestburster.

You don't have to - I'm just telling you what I'm saying, rightly or wrongly.

Forced birthers, otoh, are making an explicitly moral claim about their gods wishes when they assert such a right.  It doesn't matter to them whether the fetus would fight for it's rights and they absolutely don't care that other people would fight for reproductive rights.  Or, if we prefer....insomuch as they do... it's seen as a boon because they're accelerationists.  

I would feel the same murdery way about the state trying to abort one of our kids or sterilize me or my wife as I would about a state forcing us to breed like livestock.  As it so happens..I think abortion is immoral - but should not be illegal.  Yet another way...from my pov...that legality and morality are not interchangeable and my moral sense is not perceived..even by me... to be the best course of action in the context of the social construct. 

There are alot of observations like these.  They're not novel.  Realpolitik is an entire theory of government and policy based on eschewing ideals in favor of circumstances and outcomes.

(July 8, 2024 at 2:17 pm)Lucian Wrote: For the most part I am not disagreeing with your line of argument over the last posts. Nice to be on the same page 
I don’t think a lot of laws are about morality at all, that said… I do think some are. Those are ones that worry me, eg. laws against homosexual behavior etc. I could be wrong in my understanding of these, and I think in the scope of all the laws they are perhaps the outliers

Me too.  I think these types of laws are the ones worth worrying about regardless of the metaethical nature of reality.  

I can see how there ought to be legal space to do objectively immoral things.
I can see how there should be at least some legal space to do relatively immoral things.
I can see how there should be a hell of alot of legal space to do subjectively immoral things.

I do not believe that a government is legally legitimate only when it's doing the right objectively moral thing.
I do not believe that a government is legally legitimate only when it's doing the right relatively moral thing.
I do not believe that a government is legally legitimate only when it's doing the right subjectively moral thing.

IMO, governments lose nothing of legal value or necessity by eschewing any moral content, and do great legal harm to themselves by including it. Worry about the roads and the taxes...that's plenty of work.

(June 5, 2024 at 1:06 pm)Lucian Wrote: 1. I am interested in what reasons atheists have for believing such morality can exist in a godless universe, but not if it is appeals to intuition without grounding that further.

The question is, why would morality need a god?

(July 9, 2024 at 2:37 pm)Disagreeable Wrote:

(June 5, 2024 at 1:06 pm)Lucian Wrote: 1. I am interested in what reasons atheists have for believing such morality can exist in a godless universe, but not if it is appeals to intuition without grounding that further.

The question is, why would morality need a god?

Depending on how you define morality I don’t think it does, but I am interested not in why it would need one, but how it is justified without one. In other words, I am not interested in the argument about gods and morality, but I am interested in the argument of morality without a god. I want to understand the views of atheists more, and wanted to exclude people from arguing that a god is needed if they are Christian here

(July 9, 2024 at 2:44 pm)Lucian Wrote:

(July 9, 2024 at 2:37 pm)Disagreeable Wrote: The question is, why would morality need a god?

Depending on how you define morality I don’t think it does, but I am interested not in why it would need one, but how it is justified without one. In other words, I am not interested in the argument about gods and morality, but I am interested in the argument of morality without a god. I want to understand the views of atheists more, and wanted to exclude people from arguing that a god is needed if they are Christian here

Morality only requires a justification if one is arguing for moral objectivity. Is that what you mean? Because if morality is subjective then you can have any opinion you like and you're no less "moral" whether you're a theist or an atheist.

(July 9, 2024 at 2:46 pm)Disagreeable Wrote:

(July 9, 2024 at 2:44 pm)Lucian Wrote: Depending on how you define morality I don’t think it does, but I am interested not in why it would need one, but how it is justified without one. In other words, I am not interested in the argument about gods and morality, but I am interested in the argument of morality without a god. I want to understand the views of atheists more, and wanted to exclude people from arguing that a god is needed if they are Christian here

Morality only requires a justification if one is arguing for moral objectivity. Is that what you mean? Because if morality is subjective then you can have any opinion you like and you're no less "moral" whether you're a theist or an atheist.

Yeah, I was explicitly calling for justifications of objective moral standards in the original post. I don’t believe there are any, so wanted to get views that countered that. I happen to be a bit of a hybrid expressivist/error-theorist, but am early in my investigation of these issues so I put is always valuable.

(July 9, 2024 at 2:50 pm)Lucian Wrote:

(July 9, 2024 at 2:46 pm)Disagreeable Wrote: Morality only requires a justification if one is arguing for moral objectivity. Is that what you mean? Because if morality is subjective then you can have any opinion you like and you're no less "moral" whether you're a theist or an atheist.

Yeah, I was explicitly calling for justifications of objective moral standards in the original post. I don’t believe there are any, so wanted to get views that countered that. I happen to be a bit of a hybrid expressivist/error-theorist, but am early in my investigation of these issues so I put is always valuable.

I would define a "wrong" action as an action that causes suffering. So, therefore, going by that definition, any action that causes suffering is wrong. What would you say to that?