If it wasn't for religion

[GrandizerII]

Positing God doesn't even adequately address any of the specifics related to morality. Whether we're theists or atheists, when we're trying to argue why killing (in most cases, at least) is wrong, we generally rely on reason to do so (whatever arguments we may use). And reason is independent of God's nature and will.

[Acrobat]

Positing God doesn't even adequately address any of the specifics related to morality. Whether we're theists or atheists, when we're trying to argue why killing (in most cases, at least) is wrong, we generally rely on reason to do so (whatever arguments we may use). And reason is independent of God's nature and will.

Reason is dependent on objective truths. 

Before you even bother arguing why killing is wrong, you need to hold that you ought not do what's wrong. 

If you ought not do what's wrong is not an objective truth, then absent of it, when you provide the reasons for why you find something wrong, it would at best be akin to providing us the reasons why you think Pizza Hut makes the best tasting pizza, or why you like Italian food more than Indian food, etc. Or in other words you moral claims becoming nothing more that decorative frills of personal opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Positing God doesn't even adequately address any of the specifics related to morality. Whether we're theists or atheists, when we're trying to argue why killing (in most cases, at least) is wrong, we generally rely on reason to do so (whatever arguments we may use). And reason is independent of God's nature and will.

Reason is dependent on objective truths. 

Before you even bother arguing why killing is wrong, you need to hold that you ought not do what's wrong. 

If you ought not do what's wrong is not an objective truth, then absent of it, when you provide the reasons for why you find something wrong, it would at best be akin to providing us the reasons why you think Pizza Hut makes the best tasting pizza, or why you like Italian food more than Indian food, etc. Or in other words you moral claims becoming nothing more that decorative frills of personal opinion.

We don't actually.  We can argue that killing is wrong, while also arguing that we ought to kill. That we ought not do what is wrong is an evaluative premise referring to a goal, not a fact. Whatever the moral fact of some matter may be (if it is)...our goals do not have to, and often do not align with them. Why on earth can't you contain yourself to a single thread on this?

Do you not hold "I ought not be a spammy cunt" to be true?

[Acrobat]

We can argue that killing is wrong, while also arguing that we ought to kill.

That would like saying we can argue that something is impressible, while also arguing that it is permissible.

"Wrong" implies we ought not do it.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're arguing that we can't do something..that we do.  Can you see why this is a futile argument?  The thing you said must be done is not actually a necessity, and the thing you call impossible happens day in and day out. Wrong only denotes some property of an act or object..it doesn't tell us that we ought not do that thing on account of it. We either possess that goal or do not, or do and make exceptions. It's called an evaluative premise. We may not share the shame evaluative premises, and some are more easily justified than others..but a disgreement on these premises alters no moral fact of any matter, if those facts exist - it's just a human expression of disagreement in how to respond to whatever moral facts exist.

I get..I think we -all- get..that you see morality some specific way - but all that you're expressing in this regard... in this thread .....and the last thread, is moral myopia.

That should be instructive. Do you not hold that "I ought not be willfully ignorant" is true?

[GrandizerII]

Positing God doesn't even adequately address any of the specifics related to morality. Whether we're theists or atheists, when we're trying to argue why killing (in most cases, at least) is wrong, we generally rely on reason to do so (whatever arguments we may use). And reason is independent of God's nature and will.

Reason is dependent on objective truths. 

Before you even bother arguing why killing is wrong, you need to hold that you ought not do what's wrong.

If you ought not do what's wrong is not an objective truth, then absent of it, when you provide the reasons for why you find something wrong, it would at best be akin to providing us the reasons why you think Pizza Hut makes the best tasting pizza, or why you like Italian food more than Indian food, etc. Or in other words you moral claims becoming nothing more that decorative frills of personal opinion.

Well, how about we solve the issue I'm pointing out first before we address further contentions. Because I haven't seen any theist to date provide a satisfactory answer to my point.

Suppose your beloved god (whoever it may be) exists. God declares to you (somehow) that killing is wrong. How does this answer the question of what makes killing wrong? Is it really just because God says so? In such case, it would be subjective to what God is about and therefore not really a morality worth having. Even if I'm expected to just go with what God says because he is God, my moral intuition tells me that something is off about believing killing is wrong just because God says so. It has to be more than that. God may be able to assert that killing is wrong, and demand people accept that, but positing his existence does not logically adequately explain why killing is wrong in the first place.

This is a problem that you need to solve first before we can move on to other objections to secular morality. If you can't solve this one, then it seems like theists and atheists are pretty much generally in the same boat when it comes to morality. God does not explain morality, so no need for God to exist for objective morality to be possible. At best, a god can assert or submit that something is morally right or wrong, but that's about it.

[Acrobat]

You're arguing that we can't do something..that we do.  Can you see why this is a futile argument? 

No, that would just be a categorical error on your part. Keyword: argue

Wrong only denotes some property of an act or object..it doesn't tell us that we ought not do that thing on account of it. true?

No, wrong tells us that we ought not do it. When you tell your child it’s wrong to hit their sister, you’re telling them they ought not hit her.

[The Grand Nudger]

A god, at best, can only communicate the contents of some objective morality.  It cannot set them or it ceases to be meaningfully objective and becomes the arbitrary whim of a subjective agent.  Similarly, whatever a god -must- communicate to us, that we possess no means of certifying..even if it were objectively true, we would not have sufficient ground for concluding as much - as the relevant details would be unknown and unknowable to us.

---

You're arguing that we can't do something..that we do.  Can you see why this is a futile argument? 

No, that would just be a categorical error on your part. Keyword: argue

Jesus christ you're dense................

Wrong only denotes some property of an act or object..it doesn't tell us that we ought not do that thing on account of it.  true?

No, wrong tells us that we ought not do it. When you tell your child it’s wrong to hit their sister, you’re telling them they ought not hit her.

I understand that you think so....but your thoughts are not constraining remarks on the moral field. Wrong, if wrong is a fact, simply is....you cannot derive an ought solely from an is. Do you understand? In any ought, there is at least one evaluative premise. These evaluative premises are distinct from the moral fact, as they must be, in order to cogently derive that ought, from the initial apprehension of what is..the moral fact.

Because there is no requirement of superstition to possess either a moral fact or an evaluative premise, the notion that the falsification of superstition would have profound consequences for moral realism is false, even if it had profound consequencs for that superstitions cultist's behavior (which it generally doesn't, either). Your thoughts on the matter are your own, and..frankly..a soup sandwich of every way that a god botherer can get moral realism wrong.

If you want to understand secular moral realism, the dominant moral paradigm even among the religious..... - then you have to spend less time asserting superstitious morality and more time listening to what people are telling you.

[Acrobat]

Reason is dependent on objective truths. 

Before you even bother arguing why killing is wrong, you need to hold that you ought not do what's wrong.

If you ought not do what's wrong is not an objective truth, then absent of it, when you provide the reasons for why you find something wrong, it would at best be akin to providing us the reasons why you think Pizza Hut makes the best tasting pizza, or why you like Italian food more than Indian food, etc. Or in other words you moral claims becoming nothing more that decorative frills of personal opinion.

Well, how about we solve the issue I'm pointing out first before we address further contentions. Because I haven't seen any theist to date provide a satisfactory answer to my point.

Suppose your beloved god (whoever it may be) exists. God declares to you (somehow) that killing is wrong. How does this answer the question of what makes killing wrong? Is it really just because God says so? In such case, it would be subjective to what God is about and therefore not really a morality worth having. Even if I'm expected to just go with what God says because he is God, my moral intuition tells me that something is off about believing killing is wrong just because God says so. It has to be more than that. God may be able to assert that killing is wrong, and demand people accept that, but positing his existence does not logically adequately explain why killing is wrong in the first place.

This is a problem that you need to solve first before we can move on to other objections to secular morality. If you can't solve this one, then it seems like theists and atheists are pretty much generally in the same boat when it comes to morality. God does not explain morality, so no need for God to exist for objective morality to be possible. At best, a god can assert or submit that something is morally right or wrong, but that's about it.

No we don’t need to resolve that, because what you and I mean by God, or whatever relationship your conception of God has to do with morality, is irrelevant or unecceary to any point I’ve made.

The only thing you should concern yourself with is the things I told you I believe in, whether or not you understand the relationship between that and Christianity etc, or the Christian God is irrelevant.

[The Grand Nudger]

Now we're playing pretend?  You're the one who indicated that your belief that you were created by a god in it's image is relevant to your moral appraisal. You're the one who indicated that secular morality was, to you, "sickly" and less than compelling.

If you would like to walk back or reverse those statements of yours now, then by all means do so. You can tell us that whether you were created by a god in it's image is irrelevant to moral realism, you can tell us that secular moralities are about as compelling as superstitious ones......lol.

In short, you can argue or discuss in good faith...or...you can continue to disingenuously assert the contents of your superstitions like a real asshole. Do you not hold "I ought not lie" to be true?