The Struggle to do Good

[The Grand Nudger]

You're an atheist--so under that umbrella it would just be your opinion that harming people is objectively evil.

I'm not sure why being an atheist matters?  You believe in a god, do you not also think that harm is a relevant fact of moral import?  

Well, I'm a theist, so I actually have a good reason to believe in objective moral values and duties. You don't.

All the reason that a person needs to accept objective moral values and duties is to think that moral statements purport to report facts, and at least sometimes, get those facts right.  That's it.  That's the whole enchilada.  No gods required, regardless of whether they exist.

Going by that line of reasoning, the universe being 13.8 billion years old would magically become subjective it if a person told me that was the case. Like I said before, you don't understand how to reason--which is probably why you're an atheist.

If that were the only reason you believed it, then yes..-your belief- would be subjective.  

So where did this principle of "harming people is objectively evil" if not God?

Watching people get harmed, and being harmed ourselves.  A famous non natural realist once said that if you wanted to know what bad was, watch a group of adults kick an infant to death.

[brokenreflector]

I'm not sure why being an atheist matters?

Because if God doesn't exist, then there is no other ontological basis for objective moral values and duties.

So, from your perspective, there shouldn't be objective moral values and duties. Yet, you seem to think there are. You even stated a moral principle that you think is objectively true. It's poorly formed, but we can still use it.

"X is objectively evil if it causes harm to human beings"

Since you're an atheist, what or who is the source of this principle?

If that were the only reason you believed it, then yes..-your belief- would be subjective.

That's not what you wrote though. You wrote that X cannot be objectively true if it was told to you by a person. You seem to be backpedaling from that remark now, but I'm glad you're learning. That's a good sign.

Watching people get harmed, and being harmed ourselves.

So by watching people get harmed and being harmed yourself that somehow makes "harming human beings is objectively evil" true? That's just a non-sequitur. And there are people who derive entertainment and pleasure from watching people getting hurt. Does that mean "deriving pleasure from watching people getting hurt is objectively good," is true?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure why being an atheist matters?

Because if God doesn't exist, then there is no other ontological basis for objective moral values and duties.

The claim is untrue on it's face, but if it were true, then morality could not be objective.  It would be subjective.  The good and the bad based on the nature of a given subject, god.  

So, from your perspective, there shouldn't be objective moral values and duties. Yet, you seem to think there are. You even stated a moral principle that you think is objectively true. It's poorly formed, but we can still use it.

I'm a moral realist.  I think that moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, would be true.  That's all that's required for objective moral value and duty.  

"X is objectively evil if it causes harm to human beings"

Since you're an atheist, what or who is the source of this principle?

There's no need to add "objectively" in front of a realist statement.  It's implicit.  Yes, I think that it's bad to harm. 

I've already explained the source of this principle.  It's going to be the same in any question.  Relevant facts of a matter x.  

That's not what you wrote though. You wrote that X cannot be objectively true if it was told to you by a person. You seem to be backpedaling from that remark now, but I'm glad you're learning. That's a good sign.

It can be objectively true that vanilla is my favorite flavor of icecream, which is subjective. 

If we ask a person "why do you believe things" and they respond "because steve told me so",  then the statement x is bad does not refer to any relevant fact of x, but a fact of whether or not steve said something.  A fact of the subject.

So by watching people get harmed and being harmed yourself that somehow makes "harming human beings is objectively evil" true? That's just a non-sequitur. And there are people who derive entertainment and pleasure from watching people getting hurt. Does that mean "deriving pleasure from watching people getting hurt is objectively good," is true?

I think that human beings are moral agents capable of observing relevant facts.  

You're leveraging another subjectivist objection, btw, lol. There are certainly people who derive pleasure from doing bad things - that won't make them any less bad. There are people who would disagree that harm is bad, and that only makes them wrong. People disagree all the time, that doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer.

[brokenreflector]

The good and the bad based on the nature of a given subject, god.  

We've been through this several times already. I've tried teaching you what objective (and subjective) means, but you're unwilling or unable to learn. I don't know if you have a mental deficiency or if you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Regardless, a thing is objective if it's existence is independent of any subject's perception. God's moral nature is independent of any subject's perception. Therefore, God's moral nature is objective.

I'm a moral realist.

Unjustifiably.

I think that moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right

Who or what told you that "harming human beings is evil" is a fact?

There's no need to add "objectively" in front of a realist statement.

There is if the discussion is about whether or not objective moral values and duties exist.

Yes, I think that it's bad to harm.

What or who is your source?

It can be objectively true that vanilla is my favorite flavor of icecream, which is subjective. 

True, but that's not what you wrote. You wrote that if X is told to you by a person, then that makes it subjective. That's false. 

But I'm glad you're starting to clear up some of your thinking. At least something positive has come out of this discussion.

I think that human beings are moral agents capable of observing relevant facts.

That's great.

So when are you going to share with us your source of objective moral values and duties? Because so far all you've done is say that you've observed some things; therefore, some things are evil. That's just a non-sequitur and does nothing to show that there are objective moral values and duties.

[Deesse23]

Do you need a deity to stop you from killing, regardless it's existence? I am not asking if you think a god (must) exist, but if you have the desire to kill.

We both need God for our existence and nature; and our nature comprises our biological makeup, spiritual makeup, moral intuitions, and faculties.

I was telling you that I don't want to know if you think God exists, and you reply by telling me God exists, or mustcexist, whatever?
Is the cognitive dissonance so hard, that it turns you into a broken record? Or is it because we are off your script now?

Do you need a God to stop you from killing?

And God doesn't stop people from killing because that'd infringe upon the free will that He has given us.

I'm not interested what your God wants. I am interested in what you want. Do you want to kill? Do you need a God stopping you from doing it?

[brokenreflector]

Do you need a God to stop you from killing?

Do you want to kill?

Do you need a God stopping you from doing it?

These are very deep and illuminating questions. I'm going to have to think about it and get back to you.

[The Grand Nudger]

We've been through this several times already. I've tried teaching you what objective (and subjective) means, but you're unwilling or unable to learn. I don't know if you have a mental deficiency or if you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Regardless, a thing is objective if it's existence is independent of any subject's perception.

Correct.  Including a gods.

God's moral nature is independent of any subject's perception. Therefore, God's moral nature is objective.

Third times the charm?  Yes, I would hope that a gods moral nature could be objective.  We manage to pull it off.  

Unjustifiably.

If you think that the basic requirements of moral realism cannot be met, such that a moral realist unjustifiably holds the position - then you cannot be a moral realist.

Who or what told you that "harming human beings is evil" is a fact?

Again, a malformed question to a realist.  If moral statements referred to whether or not someone told me something, they would be subjectivist.  I refer, instead, to the relevant facts of a matter x.  

There is if the discussion is about whether or not objective moral values and duties exist.

Is it?  You'd think that two moral realists wouldn't need to hash that out between them.

What or who is your source?

....as ever, with realism, relevant facts of a matter x.

True, but that's not what you wrote. You wrote that if X is told to you by a person, then that makes it subjective. That's false. 

But I'm glad you're starting to clear up some of your thinking. At least something positive has come out of this discussion.

Which is true.  If the reason that you believe x is because someone told you to believe x, you have a subjectivist justification.  

That's great.

So when are you going to share with us your source of objective moral values and duties? Because so far all you've done is say that you've observed some things; therefore, some things are evil. That's just a non-sequitur and does nothing to show that there are objective moral values and duties.

A person either does or doesn't believe that human beings are capable of identifying facts of a matter x.  If they don't believe this, then they cannot be a moral realist.

The belief that we can't, btw, is called error theory.  Moral nihilism.

[brokenreflector]

Correct.  Including a gods.

And God's moral nature is independent of any subject's perception, making it objective.

Yes, I would hope that a gods moral nature could be objective.  We manage to pull it off.

So far you haven't provided any ontological basis for your moral values that'd make them objective.

If moral statements referred to whether or not someone told me something, they would be subjectivist.

False. We've been over this before.

Is it?  You'd think that two moral realists wouldn't need to hash that out between them.

My belief in objective moral values and duties is justified. Yours isn't

....as ever, with realism, relevant facts of a matter x.

You do realize that this is incoherent, right?

It doesn't follow that because X will in fact harm Y that therefore it is evil for X to harm Y. Are you really that stupid that you don't understand this?

A person either does or doesn't believe that human beings are capable of identifying facts of a matter x.

But how are you deriving moral values and duties from propositions? Like I wrote previously, you're either extremely stupid and out of your depth or you're a very dishonest person.

There's nothing in the proposition "hitting a person will harm them" that tells us it's evil to hit people or that we ought to not hit people. You seem to think it's objectively evil to randomly hit people. That's great. But you still haven't provided any basis for this belief. You just keep repeating the incoherent message, "human beings are capable of identifying facts of a matter x." But doesn't answer the question at all. If you really can't see that, then you're a dumb person and I'm sorry. But you shouldn't be having these kinds of discussions with such a low IQ.

This will probably be my last post to you. I really think you may be a retard who somehow got the idea in their head that they know what they're talking about.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe this will help - these are the ascending claims to morality and the terms we use to describe each position.

Cognitivism/Non Cognitivism.

This is a disagreement over whether moral statements purport to report facts. Whether they say something that can be true or false. Cognitivists assert that they do. Non-cognitivists assert that they do not, that they are more like "yuck!" and "yum!".

Emotivism is a form of non non-cognitivism. Objectivity subjectivity and error theory are all forms of cognitivism.

Objectivism/Subjectivism.

This is a disagreement over whether moral statements report facts of a matter x, or facts of a subject x. When we say that y is bad, is this a statement that refers to us as the subject x - our attitudes and opinions and nature, or is it a statement that refers to some object x, independent of our attitudes, opinions, and nature.

Error Theory.

This is the notion that there either are no moral facts...or.. if there are, human beings are not in possession of them. That we purport to report facts, and that those purported facts are facts of a matter x and not a subject x, but we do not get those facts right.

Which of these broad positions best describes your own position on human morality, and which of them presents the most significant challenge to moral realism, in your estimation?

[The Valkyrie]

I don't struggle to do or be good.

I just accept that the world is screwed up and continue planning the genocide.