The Struggle to do Good

[Abaddon_ire]

He can disagree after having had it explained, but...ironically, to do so would require that he argue against objective moral values and duty.

So if you don't believe in objective moral values and duties, then what you think is "good" is just your own person-relative taste.

False. You have no clue about morality, do you. (that was a statement, not a question)

Take one step back. Do you think it is moral to be compelled to behave in a particular way? Even if you do not agree? Even if you personally fell it is wrong to act that way?

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd have to have that discussion with someone who wasn't a moral realist, wouldn't you, Broken?

The question is better posed to you, in all likelihood. If you believe that good and bad are decided by god-relative tastes, then you are in no way a moral realist. How would you convince me, a moral realist, that your subjectivist morality had any merit whatsoever?

Further, if the propositions of that subjectivist morality must be beamed into your skull for you to even be aware of them, in what way are you a competent moral agent, or a moral agent at all?

[brokenreflector]

You'd have to have that discussion with someone who wasn't a moral realist, wouldn't you, Broken?

Stop pussyfooting around. Do you believe in objective moral values and duties or not?

If you believe that good and bad are decided by god-relative tastes

I believe in objective moral values and duties and I believe they're ontologically based in God not as tastes but as necessary principles similar to mathematics.

Further, if the propositions of that subjectivist morality must be beamed into your skull for you to even be aware of them, in what way are you a competent moral agent, or a moral agent at all?

I believe God has provided us with an epistemological framework in the form of moral faculties and self-reflection that give us the ability to apprehend these objective moral values and duties.

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd have to have that discussion with someone who wasn't a moral realist, wouldn't you, Broken?

Stop pussyfooting around. Do you believe in objective moral values and duties or not?

Can't be much more clear than telling you that I'm a moral realist, now can I?

If you believe that good and bad are decided by god-relative tastes

I believe in objective moral values and duties and I believe they're ontologically based in God not as tastes but as necessary principles similar to mathematics.

If there were a different god with a different set of necessary principles™, would those be the moral principles?  Can you give me an example of one of those principles?

Further, if the propositions of that subjectivist morality must be beamed into your skull for you to even be aware of them, in what way are you a competent moral agent, or a moral agent at all?

I believe God has provided us with an epistemological framework in the form of moral faculties and self-reflection that give us the ability to apprehend these objective moral values and duties.

This should be interesting.  Care to provide an example of that epistemological framework at-work?

[brokenreflector]

Can't be much more clear than telling you that I'm a moral realist, now can I?

You weren't direct in the beginning. You were filibustering.

If there were a different god with a different set of necessary principles™, would those be the moral principles?

I have no idea what you're asking here. Are you asking if God had different moral values then would He have different moral values? The answer is yes.

Can you give me an example of one of those principles?

Do not murder.

This should be interesting.  Care to provide an example of that epistemological framework at-work?

The conscience.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can't be much more clear than telling you that I'm a moral realist, now can I?

You weren't direct in the beginning. You were filibustering.

..............?  If you say so, but that's cleared up now, huh?

If there were a different god with a different set of necessary principles™, would those be the moral principles?

I have no idea what you're asking here. Are you asking if God had different moral values then would He have different moral values? The answer is yes.

Well, there you go.  You don't believe in objective moral values at all.  You're a moral subjectivist.  Different gods, different morals.

Can you give me an example of one of those principles?

Do not murder.

Why, and if a god wanted you to murder or even ordered you to murder, would that then be moral?  

This should be interesting.  Care to provide an example of that epistemological framework at-work?

The conscience.

Are you sure you know what the term epistemological framework means?  A conscience is, at best, a folk description of the mechanism we use to assess or identify events or actions with moral import against our principles and within our epistemological framework. Frankly, if your epistemological framework is, in any sense "what my conscience tells me" then you invite even more subjectivism into the mix. A moral realist, a person who acknowledges objective values, can only refer to what facts tell them, regardless of what their conscience says or how it makes them feel.

That's what the term means. It doesn't have anything to do with gods, or you, or me, or any other subject. Objective/subjective. We still on the same page? Are we refering to the same thing when we use the term?

[brokenreflector]

Well, there you go.  You don't believe in objective moral values at all.

You asked me if God had different moral values, then would He have different moral values. The answer is yes. And, no, that doesn't mean I don't believe in objective moral values and duties or that they don't exist.

You're a moral subjectivist.  Different gods, different morals.

That doesn't follow at all.

Why, and if a god wanted you to murder

It's not murder if the killing is justified. If God truly told me to kill somebody, then I'd assume there was a good reason.

Are you sure you know what the term epistemological framework means?

Are you sure you're not a homeless crackhead who is accessing this forum through a public library?

A conscience is, at best, a folk description of the mechanism

Yeah, uh, wrong.

So, conscience is another way of saying moral intuition. It's a mechanism used for accessing objective moral values and duties.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, there you go.  You don't believe in objective moral values at all.

You asked me if God had different moral values, then would He have different moral values. The answer is yes. And, no, that doesn't mean I don't believe in objective moral values and duties or that they don't exist.

You're a moral subjectivist.  Different gods, different morals.

That doesn't follow at all.

The notion that morality changes when the subject changes is the definition of moral subjectivism.  An objectivist could only say that morality would be the same no matter what a god was or did or wanted.  

Objectivists refer to some fact of the act in question, not some fact about a hypothetical subject.  

Why, and if a god wanted you to murder

It's not murder if the killing is justified. If God truly told me to kill somebody, then I'd assume there was a good reason.

Then there's nothing bad about murder.  The good or bad making property is whether a subject has told you to do so, or refrain from doing so.  

Are you sure you know what the term epistemological framework means?

Are you sure you're not a homeless crackhead who is accessing this forum through a public library?

Lemme check. 

Yep, I'm sure.

A conscience is, at best, a folk description of the mechanism

Yeah, uh, wrong.

So, conscience is another way of saying moral intuition. It's a mechanism used for accessing objective moral values and duties.

Which, again, is not an epistemological framework...at least not to moral objectivism.  Realism, for example, is the epistemological framework of moral objectivism...not the feels you get from your conscience.

I want you to take a breath here and consider something. Rather than do battle with me over a word - a battle that you are certain to lose by definition...if the things you're expressing are an accurate description of your beliefs...maybe just own them? If that's what you really believe to be the case with morality, and if it just so happens that the accurate term for this is moral subjectivism...and even though you don't like that term for whatever reason, it would still remain a fact that it is what you believe.

You are a moral subjectivist who has privileged what you believe to be a gods moral opinions. I am a moral realist who thinks that moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, are true. When you exclaim that murder is bad, you are referring to some alleged fact(s) of your gods opinion on the matter. When I say the same, I am referring to some alleged fact(s) of murder.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You asked me if God had different moral values, then would He have different moral values. The answer is yes. And, no, that doesn't mean I don't believe in objective moral values and duties or that they don't exist.


That doesn't follow at all.

The notion that morality changes when the subject changes is the definition of moral subjectivism.  An objectivist could only say that morality would be the same no matter what a god was or did or wanted.  

Objectivists refer to some fact of the act in question, not some fact about a hypothetical subject.  

It's not murder if the killing is justified. If God truly told me to kill somebody, then I'd assume there was a good reason.

Then there's nothing bad about murder.  The good or bad making property is whether a subject has told you to do so, or refrain from doing so.  

Are you sure you're not a homeless crackhead who is accessing this forum through a public library?

Lemme check. 

Yep, I'm sure.

Yeah, uh, wrong.

So, conscience is another way of saying moral intuition. It's a mechanism used for accessing objective moral values and duties.

Which, again, is not an epistemological framework...at least not to moral objectivism.  Realism, for example, is the epistemological framework of moral objectivism...not the feels you get from your conscience.

I want you to take a breath here and consider something.  Rather than do battle with me over a word - a battle that you are certain to lose by definition...if the things you're expressing are an accurate description of your beliefs...maybe just own them?  If that's what you really believe to be the case with morality, and if it just so happens that the accurate term for this is moral subjectivism...and even though you don't like that term for whatever reason, it would still remain a fact that it is what you believe.

You are a moral subjectivist who has privileged what you believe to be a gods moral opinions.  I am a moral realist who thinks that moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, are true.  When you exclaim that murder is bad, you are referring to some alleged fact(s) of your gods opinion on the matter.  When I say the same, I am referring to some alleged fact(s) of murder.

Now watch him just call you stupid and say nuh huh a lot. Because he's not here to talk about anything .He's here to provoke and posture .

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, that's fine, but it's no longer possible for him to be ignorant of how moral realism works. He may continue to disagree with moral realism...but hey, already knew that he'd end up arguing against it, and wouldn't enjoy the convo.