Morality

[The Grand Nudger]

In reality they are. 

The moral schema describes what is right, and what is wrong.  The deontological assertions refer to this schema and supply an additional evaluative premise.  

Moral schema is, deontology, ought.  Do you understand any of the examples I've already given you about the lack or presence of compulsion regardless of the presence of a moral system?  If there are two potential objects, and one can be present in the absence of the other..they are not the same thing. 

The ought, of that I ought to do what’s good, I ought not to do what’s immoral, doesn’t merely exists in my head, but out there, in objective reality as well. To doubt it’ existence, is like doubting the existence of other minds besides my own. Or that the cup in front of me, only exists in my mind.

Those are your evaluative premises.  That there is good is a fact*.  That you ought to do good is an assertion.  OFC assertions exist, and whether they exist in your head or "out there"...honestly there's no difference in this..since your head is also "out there".   

In any case, non deontological realism, like non-natural and natural realism.... exists.  We're not entirely sure that moral facts -could- place obligations on our actions..but in the meantime we know for a fact that -we- do.  

*a fact insomuch as we're accepting moral realism for convenience of discussion.

You might deny this,  but I’d see like I would a solipsist in this regard.

Rephrase? I've gotta confess, here, that I'm pretty sure this discussion is turning into a negative word association exercise for you.......

Remember what we said awhile ago, that moral nihilism and moral realism can’t be both be true, because one is a negation of the other. 

Let's use harm.

Harm is morally wrong, this a moral fact. I ask what makes it morally wrong, you say “harm”. Do you see the tautology yet? Harm is morally wrong, because harm is harm. 

When I say harm is wrong, I don’t mean harm is harm. I mean we ought not harm. That we ought not harm is a moral fact. 

Well, that's nice, but that's just what you mean to say..it's not a requirement of moral realism.  

If my view,  is as you say false, that there is no such thing as the moral realty that I’m implying here, I would subscribe to moral nihilism. 

That's unfortunate..you'd become a moral nihilist just because you were unclear on some obscure bit of ethical academia?  Are you sure you're not a moral nihilist already...lol?

Now try and indicate why moral nihilism is false, in relationship to your supposed moral realism. I wouldn’t believe anything is intrinsically moral or immoral, that I have no moral obligations, or duties.

Who says you don't have moral obligations or duties?  I'm completely certain that you do.  

You claim this is false, the holocaust is wrong is a moral fact. It’s wrong because its harmful.

Obviously as a general comment, yeah.  

I say I acknowledge that’s it harmful, but I don’t see it as morally wrong or right. What is that labeling it as morally wrong saying that it’s harmful isn’t saying? If it’s not as you imply, that I ought not do it?

The brilliant objection of you saying things..is that what you're looking for someone to overcome?  I say that eggplants are mammals.  Checkmate?

All you’re doing is attaching the label “moral” to things that are harmful, but it’s a hallow and empty attachment, that contributes no additional meaning, or facts to the statement x is harmful. Hence why your argument for moral realism fails, and my.  moral nihilism is true

Well, it's more likely that the label of "harmful" is attached to things we perceive as bad™.  This may account for why so many non harmful things are misapprehended as such due to preexisting moral beliefs...as well as why so many harmful things fly under that same radar of those same moral beliefs. That moral facts exist won't make us any better at working them out than we are with other facts...nor would we expect for people to live their lives in accordance to those facts any more than they live their lives according to others. Some facts, in life..are fairly easy to ignore..wouldn't you agree?

However, just running headlong into this one for you..so what if we were?  So what if what we meant by morally bad™ was harmful?  That would only strengthen the case of natural realism.  Why would that...make moral nihilism..true?

-Vulcan. Poor guy..he's trying to run some all or nothing gambit past you, lol?