If it wasn't for religion

[Acrobat]

Do you understand?

-and, no.

They're designations of what acts belong to conceptual sets and why we think so.

Goodness and badness are no more the material properties themselves than the elephant in your mind is an actual elephant somehow crammed into your skull.

I'm guessing that you don't realize this..but you're bickering about linguistics with me, not morality, at this point.

I am picturing an elephant in my hall, there’s no actual elephant in my hall, this elephant purely exists in my mind, but not externally in the hall.

The elephant here is just a mental image. In order for it to be real, it has to be a referent to an elephant that’s externally in the hall.

When speaking of goodness and badness, your arguments keep shifting, moving back and forth, between an elephant in the hall, and an elephant not in the hall, but purely an image of one in our minds.

You can’t seem to decide whether good and bad are as real as the elephant at the zoo, or just one that exists purely in my minds imagination and conception, like the one I’m picturing now.

If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps when you say the holocaust is bad, the real referent here is the holocaust, and its historical facts about it’s impact and consequences? If so, calling it bad, doesn’t provide any additional historical facts about it, than just calling it the holocaust.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you understand?

-and, no.  


Goodness and badness are no more the material properties themselves than the elephant in your mind is an actual elephant somehow crammed into your skull.

I'm guessing that you don't realize this..but you're bickering about linguistics with me, not morality, at this point.

I am picturing an elephant in my hall, there’s no actual elephant in my hall, this elephant purely exists in my mind,  but not externally in the hall.

The elephant here is just a mental image, in order for it to be real, it has to be a referent to an elephant that’s externally in the hall.

In order for it to be real in the sense that's important to moral realism, yes.  In order for it to be real in a sense not important to moral realism..no.  

When speaking of goodness and badness, your arguments keep shifting, moving back and forth, between an elephant in the hall, and an elephant not in the hall, but purely an image of one in our minds.

You can’t seem to decide whether good and bad are as real as the elephant at the zoo, or just one tha exists purely in my minds imagination, and conception, like the on I’m picturing now.

If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps when you say the holocaust is bad, the real referent here is the holocaust, and its historical facts about it’s impact and consequences? If so, calling it bad, doesn’t provide any additional historical facts about it, than just calling it the holocaust.

The purpose of a moral evaluation isn't to add any additional historic facts, but to assess the moral status of the act(s) by reference to them and their relationship to purported moral facts.

It is a historic (or empirical) fact that the nazis were tossing jews into ovens.
Tossing jews into ovens possesses those properties to which we are referring when we call something bad.

I'm, still going to insist that you take a break from your fishing expedition and confront the fact that you made a claim you could not possibly back up..if you need me to explain -anything- about moral realism.

[Acrobat]

No that’s why I’m asking you the question.

Of whether goodness and badness are material properties , that exist independent of our minds?

You don't understand why you'd have to know something about my morality before claiming to know something about my morality?

As to the other. This has been very simple from the outset. I think that goodness and badness refer to material properties. Some act x either possesses those properties or it does not.

You don’t see why saying what you said here, can come off as contradicting what you were implying here:

“No one thinks that we'll be filling any holes in the periodic table with goodium and badium.”

The implication of the above being, that good and bad don’t exist as the material properties of x, like we might say of molecules, or bricks, or other material components of x.

---

It is a historic (or empirical) fact that the nazis were tossing jews into ovens.
Tossing jews into ovens possesses those properties to which we are referring when we call something bad.

Tossing jews into the ovens possess all the properties of tossing Jews into the oven, that’s it.

A pizza from dominos possess all the properties in which I am referring to as (tastes) good. The correct proportion of cheese to meat ratio, the correct degree of crispness, etc..

Therefore good is a material property of dominos pizza.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't understand why you'd have to know something about my morality before claiming to know something about my morality?

As to the other.  This has been very simple from the outset.  I think that goodness and badness refer to material properties.  Some act x either possesses those properties or it does not.

You don’t see why saying what you said here, can come off as contradicting what you were implying here:

“No one thinks that we'll be filling any holes in the periodic table with goodium and badium.”

What I can see..is that you have a compulsion to imagine that -anything- I might have to say just has to be incoherent, contradictory, or delusional. That's your schtick.  

The assertion has never been anything other than entirely pointless and stupid.  Moral realism only requires that a person contend that there are moral facts, and moral facts are not gods......there is nothing whatsoever about an atheist being a moral realist that could even conceivably -be- incoherent, contradictory, or delusional.  

You, acro..you, for having so breathlessly made that claim over and over again...actually -are- delusional. Maybe..if it weren't for your religion.......

The implication of the above being, that good and bad don’t exist as the material properties of x, like we might say of molecules, or bricks, or other material components of x.

There is no implication above.  I'm telling you..over and over again... that good and bad are not stuff.  That it's not an issue of goodium and badium.  That good and bad, to a realist, only needs to refer to true statements that can be objectively verified and have a moral import.  

Will you ever get around to confronting the fact that you have been wholly, utterly, and completely wrong for many pages now?

[Acrobat]

Just in case you missed this:

It is a historic (or empirical) fact that the nazis were tossing jews into ovens.
Tossing jews into ovens possesses those properties to which we are referring when we call something bad.

Tossing jews into the ovens possess all the properties of tossing Jews into the oven, that’s it.

A pizza from dominos possess all the properties in which I am referring to as (tastes) good. The correct proportion of cheese to meat ratio, the correct degree of crispness, etc..

Therefore good is a material property of dominos pizza.

[The Grand Nudger]

Tossing jews into the ovens possess all the properties of tossing Jews into the oven, that’s it.

...................and? OFC tossing jews into ovens possesses all of the properties of tossing jews into ovens............... 

A pizza from dominos possess all the properties in which I am referring to as (tastes) good. The correct proportion of cheese to meat ratio, the correct degree of crispness, etc..

Therefore good is a material property of dominos pizza.

Sure, I'm entirely certain that what tastes good to you comes down to a material property of that thing (many, from the looks of it).  

In fact, you might even be able to create a rule of what tastes good to you with enough data...since "correct proportion of cheese to meat ratio, the correct degree of crispiness, etc" can be applied to more than just a pizza.

So...still not interested in confronting the fact that you've been talking out of your ass?

[Dr H]

Even off-hand I can think of at least a half-dozen ways to make you think you "see" a cup that isn't there.

Sure, by the sort of optical illusions magicians use, or etc.... But i have no reason to think the cup I'm seeing in front of me now is such an illusion. I have no  reason to doubt my perception here.

Actually I was thinking of direct brain stimulation of those parts of the brain which are active when you do perceive a cup that is actually there.  This could be done electrically, with certain drugs, and possibly magnetically.

And, of course, there's hypnosis and other forms of suggestion.

Optical illusion was not at the top of my list.

[Acrobat]

Sure, by the sort of optical illusions magicians use, or etc.... But i have no reason to think the cup I'm seeing in front of me now is such an illusion. I have no  reason to doubt my perception here.

Actually I was thinking of direct brain stimulation of those parts of the brain which are active when you do perceive a cup that is actually there.  This could be done electrically, with certain drugs, and possibly magnetically.

And, of course, there's hypnosis and other forms of suggestion.

Optical illusion was not at the top of my list.

Sure, like a brain in vat scenario, or us living in the matrix.

If they were true would cast doubt all of perceptions and experiences. But absent of any defeater, like some compelling factor to make me think im a brain in vat, I have no reasons to doubt my sense experiences.

[pocaracas]

Wrong.
When you speak of wrongness, you speak of an emotion, which is an "inner biological state".

No, speaking of wrongness, or saying something is wrong, doesn’t equate to you telling me your emotions, or expressing to me your feelings, or describing your inner biological state. You’re not actually say something about you at all, you’re saying something about something else. When saying the holocaust is bad, you’re not telling me  how the holocaust makes you feel, you’re saying something about the holocaust itself.

Are you saying that the thought of people getting mass murdered doesn't make you sick? sad? disgusted? Revolted? angry?... All of the above and more?
Can you envisage "wrong" just being a label for when we perceive some action to activate a given number, or some particular set of these emotions?

Like the revulsion we feel at the thought of a sexual encounter between siblings.
Like the anger we feel at seeing someone hit someone weaker? "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?"
Like anger towards injustice.
Like many things that you'd put under the umbrella of morality, but, under the hood, they're formed of emotions.

Imagine, you drop your wallet, I keep the money in it and discard it, I have conflicting emotions I feel negative emotions like guilt, I feel pleasant emotions because I get to buy something nice. I tell myself, there’s nothing wrong with what I just did, it’s just some negative emotions, caused by a mix of environmental and social factors, but it’ll pass like a tummy ache over time.

Such a person, whose account of his emotional state is accurate, reducing the wrongness of what he did, to dismiss it like any other temporary biological  discomfort, would be akin to a sociopath.

Only a sociopath would operate and live, as if the wrongness of things, is reducible to his emotional states, as if the wrongness of things losses it’s wrongness, if our emotional reactions to it decline.

Well, a sociopath would have no negative emotional response to such things, so there...

Ah... Hitler... the holocaust... it happened because the "others" were seen as inferior.
Evolution provided us with tools to deal with our own group, our tribe... others are always some form of enemy.
Nowadays, with out awareness of the whole worldwide population, some of us can extend this inner tribe to somehow encompass this global population. But most people still can't do that. Let it evolve... it will take hundreds of years if not millennia.

The holocaust arose in large part by the human capacity of scapegoating, scapegoating, like other cognitive defense mechanics like, confirmation biases, are features selected for by evolution. The Jews became the scapegoat for all the problems of German society. When societies scapegoat the targets are often those seen as lesser or weaker, minorities, etc..

This capacity was selected for by evolution, and your belief that somehow this element has been eradicated as time goes on is, is just nonsense.

You're just repeating yourself... shall I do the same so we then talk past each other and just accomplish at frustrating each other?

It’s also a fairy tale, to think that people have extended their once deep rooted devotion to their tribes to societies. As if the devotion you feel for those intimately in your life, has been extended to the faceless, nameless members of your society.

I care far more about my child, my wife, my friends, my small community, than I ever will yours. And this is not because I posses some archaic biological makeup that you don’t.

Of course we don't place the faceless, nameless at the same level as those we know and are close to.
But what I mean is that those on the other side of the globe are just as faceless and nameless as those who live on the next village. And, if I can empathize with the ones closer, I can do it too to those who are far away.

But this "moral reality" is being imposed by the desire to live in society.
Even if it's not immediately visible (and I can tell that you're not seeing it), it is this desire (which is an actual need or dependency) to live in society that drives us to have moral behaviors.

Behaviors you might label as “moral”, are not the same as “moral beliefs”. Apes may display behaviors we would label as moral, but they lack any moral system of beliefs, they’re not moral realist, moral subjectivist, moral nihilist etc...  they don’t have an ontology of morality. Or if they do, it would remain forever unknown to us.

Since you like to give examples of stuff, picture this hypothetical: imagine you, as a human being were not a social animal. You are an animal that wants to survive and breed, no concern whatsoever about society, no concept even of what that is. Like a puma, totally alone for the great majority of your life. What sort of moral belief would you have under this scenario?
Or better, would you even possess the concept of "morality"?

I hope this will help you understand a bit more how morality is a product of society, and not something that's out there.

Our beliefs are not reducible to our biology, particularly when they're not reflections on our inner states and processes. They often pertain, particularly when it comes to our moral beliefs to an external reality.

To say wrongness is merely a feeling, to me, is similiar  to claiming that things I see in front of me, are just in my head, and not out there, as I perceive them to be.

Perhaps you believe that, are a moral subjectivist in this regard, good and bad, is sort of like your taste in music, or food, where goodness and badness are merely expressions of subjective preference. But it doesn’t even seem that most atheists here accept that, and tend to be averse to when people like myself try and reduce their moral views as such.

I don't know about you, but I feel like my beliefs are just what my experience has deemed to be the most plausible.
And this experience is mainly my memory of past events, memory of learned data from tales by others and it is then my own reasoning that arrives at some plausibility level to whatever datum or claim. If I deem something plausible, then I tend to believe it to be so... if not, I do not believe. So, if I look at how all these processes happen, I see them working in my brain... a reflection of my inner state.

Wrongness is a feeling you have inside, but you are aware that most of your fellow humans also possess that feeling inside. And that gives the impression of a shared sense of wrongness that you are interpreting as existing independent from you and extrapolating it to be independent from anyone and everyone.
But, if this sense of wrongness is an evolved trait, this explains its innateness to most of us and how it seems to transcend each of us. Don't you think?

[Acrobat]

Tossing jews into the ovens possess all the properties of tossing Jews into the oven, that’s it.

...................and? OFC tossing jews into ovens possesses all of the properties of tossing jews into ovens...............

A pizza from dominos possess all the properties in which I am referring to as (tastes) good. The correct proportion of cheese to meat ratio, the correct degree of crispness, etc..

Therefore good is a material property of dominos pizza.

Sure, I'm entirely certain that what tastes good to you comes down to a material property of that thing (many, from the looks of it).

In fact, you might even be able to create a rule of what tastes good to you with enough data...since "correct proportion of cheese to meat ratio, the correct degree of crispiness, etc" can be applied to more than just a pizza.

Sure, even If i sucked at discerning all the elements that compose the things that I find taste good, it’s possible that I could feed a computer with all the different foods that I like, and it churns out a variety of things to try, with a high predictably that I’d find those things to be good as well.

This seems to be true of all our subjective preferences, like music, fashion, movies, the sort of people we find good looking, ugly etc.

All the things that go into the good category and bad category, are based on a variety of physical traits and criteria of the things being categorized one way or the other. You’ll find bland foods in the bad category, spicy and sweet foods in the good category, dark skinned, skinny girls in the good category, fat, pail girls in the bad category. Music that sounds like Justin Bieber in the good category, music that sounds like death metal in the bad category.

If we applied your logic, at the end of the day all the things that would have fallen into the subjective category, would now fall under the objective category, without any real substantive change taking place in this transition.

Good becomes a property of the objects themselves. Justin Bieber being a good musician becomes an objective fact, and no longer a subjective preference.