(July 2, 2013 at 2:11 pm)Inigo Wrote: But the sensations will be hallucations and the beliefs false. So your story will be a story about how it has come to pass that we have this hallucination, and how it has come to pass that we have all these false beliefs.

And?

(July 2, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: In the bolded bit, you -conceded- the case of the italicized bit. Do most of us have something that doesn't exist? How does that work, I wonder?

I did not 'concede'. ONe cannot concede something one has been maintaining from the outset. Moral sensations and beliefs exist. There is no question of their existence. What is in doubt is the existence of morality itself. Only someone who confuses the sensation with the thing sensed, or the belief with the thing believed (the object of the belief) would think moral sensations and beliefs 'constitute' morality. But someone who thinks that is an idiot. It is as stupid as thinking a chair is a belief.
Beliefs has objects. Things they are 'about'. A belief can be about another belief (I can believe myself to believe X). But at some point a belief is about something that is not a belief. So, a belief about a chair is about a chair.

MOral beliefs are 'about' morality. THe belief that an act is wrong, for instance, is a moral belief. For it is the belief that an act has the property of wrongness. But the existence of the belief does not establish the existence of the wrongness.

Now stop being thick and tedious and try to grasp this.

I swear I keep fucking posting in this thread...

(July 2, 2013 at 2:17 pm)Inigo Wrote: I did not 'concede'. ONe cannot concede something one has been maintaining from the outset. Moral sensations and beliefs exist. There is no question of their existence.

O-kay.......

Quote: What is in doubt is the existence of morality itself.

:Looks up:

Quote: Only someone who confuses the sensation with the thing sensed, or the belief with the thing believed (the object of the belief) would think moral sensations and beliefs 'constitute' morality.

Moral objects? Meh, I've never seen one, they don't appear to be required for any moral beliefs to exist in the first place...nor are the beliefs themselves required. Down the rabbit hole we go.

Quote: But someone who thinks that is an idiot. It is as stupid as thinking a chair is a belief. Beliefs has objects. Things they are 'about'. A belief can be about another belief (I can believe myself to believe X). But at some point a belief is about something that is not a belief. So, a belief about a chair is about a chair.

So long as you can provide a chair...sure...if not........then we haven;t reached that terminus, have we?

Quote:MOral beliefs are 'about' morality. THe belief that an act is wrong, for instance, is a moral belief.

Correct, and the belief is all that is required for morality to exist. There doesn't need to be an object. If there is, okay, but you haven't shown that object yet, and it wouldn't matter if it weren't there, rgr? So long as people have beliefs about what is right and wrong - regardless of what might actually be right or wrong, or where they get those beliefs - morality exists. Waffles, peanuts, beliefs about beliefs...it all works just as well.

(July 2, 2013 at 2:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: And?

What do you mean 'and'?? If you believe X exists then X exists if and only if your belief that X exists is TRUE.

Morality doesn't necessarily exist just because moral beliefs exist. MOrality only exists if the object of those beliefs exists. Why can't you grasp this? I can't make it any simpler. If you can't grasp it then there's really nothing more I can do. One can't have a meaningful discussion of metaethics with those incapable of grasping certain distinctions.

(July 2, 2013 at 2:29 pm)Inigo Wrote: What do you mean 'and'?? If you believe X exists then X exists if and only if your belief that X exists is TRUE.

Oh come now, whether or not x exists is not dependent on your beliefs being true or false. Too easy. "And" as in, fine, call morality a hallucination if that's what you would like to do, and? You're flirting with an argument from consequences...and here's the truth of the matter...I couldn't care less about arguments from consequence.

Quote:Morality doesn't necessarily exist just because moral beliefs exist. MOrality only exists if the object of those beliefs exists. Why can't you grasp this?

Perhaps because there's nothing to grasp?

Quote: I can't make it any simpler. If you can't grasp it then there's really nothing more I can do. One can't have a meaningful discussion of metaethics with those incapable of grasping certain distinctions.

Then leave the explanation of whatever you;re trying to communicate to those that can. I've heard it said, that if you cannot explain something so simply that anyone can grasp it easily - then you don;t understand the subject well enough yourself.

So try this..stop blaming the recipient for your failure to communicate a message, eh? If you have something to say that isn't getting through, find some other way to say it.

(July 2, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Inigo Wrote: One of the major problems is that morality instructs/favours whereas a law of nature (or supernature) does not. So this kind of view will be entirely unable to account for morality's instructing nature.

You keep saying morality has an instructing nature. Why? Please prove this. You keep using your premise that is has an instructing nature(which in itself has not proof) to argue against others. If you want to continue using the word 'instructive', morality has an instructive nature the same way pain does. You have a choice to ignore the pain of touching a burning hot frying pan, but because of the chemical reactions/nerve patterns you will probably rather not continue to touch the pan. Key phrase here is you have a choice. You can burn yourself if you wish. Same way with morals which work in basically the same way. We all have what are mirror neurons(or most of us), which when harm is done to another the same pain we see, or hear is literally transmitted back to our brain by our own neurons. This is only one example.

Quote:Why are you sure morality exists? Moral sensations and beliefs exist.

Semantics. I am not saying it exists in a literal sense. It can only exist because we exist, otherwise it would be pointless to talk about it. It doesn't exist in a literal sense. It exists as a concept. Concepts and reason follow our own sensations and observations. It is a follow up to our own reactions in the real world added into a sense of reason. You do know there is a nerve effect which causes your chest to swell when you see a group of people being helped. Just another interesting fact.

(July 2, 2013 at 1:59 pm)Faith No More Wrote: You are simply using the Argument from Morality, only you've tried to smuggle it in by claiming that something which we can derive instructions from requires an intelligent agent as an axiom. As I have tried to mention, we receive instructions from the sensation of pain, but it requires no sentient agent, simply nerves telling us what is and is not good for our survival.Until you can prove that instructions require an intelligent agent, you're dead in the water.

Er, I KNOW I am running a moral argument for a god!! That's like me pointing out to you that you are 'simply using words to express yourself'! Blimey. Labelling an argument doesn't refute it. Label it 'the stupid argument from morality' if you like, that won't show it to be stupid.

But the moral argument for a god's existence has as one of its premises that morality requires a god (the other premise is that morality exists). I am arguing in support of that premise.

I have addressed your point about pains etc. When we experience pain we are prompted to direct ourselves away from the source of the pain. But we are agents. So the kind of directing and favouring that you are locating and talking about is directing and favouring carried out by an agent. Ourselves. It underlines my point, it doesn't challenge it.
Morality instructs and favours. The only thing I'm aware of that can instruct and favour is an agent. So, unless you can provide some good reason to think otherwise, morality must be an agent.

(July 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm)Inigo Wrote: When we experience pain we are prompted to direct ourselves away from the source of the pain. But we are agents. So the kind of directing and favouring that you are locating and talking about is directing and favouring carried out by an agent. Ourselves. It underlines my point, it doesn't challenge it.

Actually, it challenges it completely and absolutely, because now...the roster of agents -that you have allowed- contains one in evidence, and one that only exists as an assertion. We still have my waffles and peanuts waiting to pinch hit btw. If all you require is an agent...we aren't at a loss for them. No..you don;t require an agent..you were simply hoping to equivocate between "agent" and "god".

Oh...such a tough choice.....lol.

Try again.

(I'm dying to know, btw, and I won't think less of you for the charade.......which god gave me my morals?)