[quote='BrotherNeto' pid='471474' dateline='1372790507']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]

I KNOW that one of my premises is that morality has an instructing nature. I wrote that premise myself. Why feel the need to point out to me something I patently obviously aware of? I am extracting the implications of that premise.

Do you deny it, then? If you do there is no point in us continuing this discussion. For it is a conceptual truth about morality that it instructs and favours. Morality is essentially 'normative' meaning precisely that it directs.

So, if you deny this feature then as far as I am concerned you are just not talking about what I am talking about - and so there's no point in us continuing. I'm talking about the same thing Kant, Hume, and all contemporary metaethicists are talking about, namely something that is essentially normative. If you're not, then you're simply talking past me and not addressing me.

I think that what you may have been missing in all of this, Inigo, is that one need not deny the premise to reach a disparate conclusion. One could consider morality an agent, or as having it's origins in an agent...but this will not yield a god.

BrotherNeto Wrote: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.

So you accept that morality does not exist. Fine. My point is that morality can exist, it just requires a god. It appears to exist (for we have the sense that there are external instructions that confer reasons for compliance). Most of us believe it to exist (for most of us believe some acts to be wrong and others right). But unless a certain sort of god exists, then morality doesn't.

There's no point in telling me about the existence and causal genesis of moral sensations and beliefs. I don't dispute their existence. Nobody does.

(July 2, 2013 at 2:04 pm)max-greece Wrote: Still ignoring the evolutionary explanation I see.

Naturally. it just wouldn't do to discuss evidence based theories.

(July 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm)Inigo Wrote: So you accept that morality does not exist. Fine. My point is that morality can exist, it just requires a god.

Morality exists the same way a theory exists.
Even if it exists as a natural thing, it doesn't require a God. Just another agent, whether this agent is intelligent or not. Where are you getting this from?
Most here still don't know how you are arriving at such a premise.

(July 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm)Inigo Wrote: My point is that morality can exist, it just requires a god.

A point you have failed to give any reason for that does not work equally well for waffles and peanuts. That, would be the rub.

Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:Naturally. it just wouldn't do to discuss evidence based theories.

How am I ignoring the evolutionary explanation? I am not denying the evolutionary explanation!! But the evolutionary explanation is an explanation of the development of our moral sense and moral beliefs. And morality is not a sensation or a belief. It is the thing sensed, the thing believed. How many times?

An evolutionary explanation of religious sensations and beliefs can be provided as well. Does such an explanation show those religions to be true? No, it debunks them.

Similarly, an evolutionary explanation of our moral sense and beliefs DEBUNKS those beliefs.

(July 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm)Inigo Wrote: I am not denying the evolutionary explanation!! But the evolutionary explanation is an explanation of the development of our moral sense and moral beliefs. And morality is not a sensation or a belief. It is the thing sensed, the thing believed. How many times?

Is it? Doesn't seem to be the case from here. We have plenty of beliefs about morality.....I've never been handed any moral legos, howsabout you?

Quote:Similarly, an evolutionary explanation of our moral sense and beliefs DEBUNKS those beliefs.

It may debunk some claim of accuracy or truth in those beliefs.....but I didn't realize that were were talking about moral accuracy or truth?

Rhythm Wrote:A point you have failed to give any reason for that does not work equally well for waffles and peanuts. That, would be the rub.

I'm afraid I think you're one of those people who enjoys infuriating people by being painfully closed minded and stupid and then, when they break and insult you think you've somehow won the argument when all you've actually done is satisfy a need to get a reaction out of someone. Until you say something half way sensible or back up your points with reasoned argument as I have done, I can't be bothered responding to you. (that's a cue for you to construe this as a victory for you)

(July 2, 2013 at 3:13 pm)Inigo Wrote: Until you say something half way sensible or back up your points with reasoned argument as I have done