Morality

[The Grand Nudger]

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.  

“We” don’t. You don’t place any moral obligations on me, nor do I, nor does my culture and society. I don’t recognize any of these as a moral authority capable of placing such things on me.

You don't have to recognize obligations to have them placed upon you.  Whether you reject the authority of the state or not..for example..has very little bearing on your obligation to follow its laws, lol.

I understand what you're trying to say..but you're just agreeing with me by way of attempted disagreement.  You have presented yourself as the arbiter of what obligations you do or don't have.  This is you..a person, placing obligations upon yourself (or removing them from yourself).  The sheer existence of those other schemas and authorities doesn;t compel or obligate you, in your estimation.

At best what you have is what society wishes I do, not what I am obligated to do, and a hope that I make a non-binding promise to fulfill these wishes.

We all have this, regardless of morality's ontological status.  

To say I have  an obligation to not harm you, is like saying you have an obligation to pay off my school loans. I really really wish you did pay off my school loans, but my strong wish isn’t your obligation.

To say you have an obligation not to harm me is the conclusion of an evaluative premise, not the moral fact from which this conclusion is derived...we've discussed this.  I actually don't think that you have any such blanket obligation..personally.

Perhaps there’s some group of you that’s made a non-binding promise with each other to do no harm, perhaps you can say those that made this non-binding promise, have a non-binding obligation to do not harm.

Okay?

But how about for those of us who never made such a promise, are we unbound? Aren’t we free of the non-binding obligations you impose on yourself?

IDK, are you...tell me more about how you set the boundaries of your own compulsions..rather than having them st for you by any real or purported moral fact?

How about I make a deal, I’ll join your club, and make that non-binding promise to do no harm, as long you pay off my school loans? Do we have a deal.

The claim that you know for a fact that we impose moral obligations on others, is false.

Not sure if trolling or just stupid? A massive chunk of human culture is the delineation and imposition of obligations.

In reality for most us, particularly since most of us are religious, the obligations are imposed on us by moral facts themselves, or the form of the good itself, or some sort of transcendent moral order, and not other people, or even ourselves.

We are born with such obligations, regardless if we rebel, or act against it, but it’s seen as a failure on our part.

You're using the term "moral fact" as a standin for your religion (they;re not actually the same thi9ng, but whatever...)..which was imposed upon you, by people.

No, it has nothing with clarity of your position.  It’s just that what you claim exists doesn’t exist. Because there’s nothing intrinsically wrong or right. Perhaps you and you friends develop some moral framework, that outlines everything you feel is right, and everything you feel is wrong, like a moral code of conduct, and you go around getting the equivalent of signatures. I wouldn’t sign it. And even if I did it would be pretty meaningless, because i’m not bound to it anyways.

So you are..already, a moral nihilist, then? Why would it matter if you signed a pledge to live by moral facts? It's not like signing a pledge would force you to do so either? Nor would it somehow bind you in a way that other expressions of consent don't. This is exactly what I've expressed to you..what you're arguing with, lol....?

Why would I willfully choose to put the shackles of your morality upon myself, at the same time holding the key to untie those shackles? Why not just refuse the shackles? Accept the liberation and freedom from morality that moral nihilism offers, than the imagined slavery to you, or to your group, or humanity,

I don't know. I can't speak to your specific motivations..you'd have to tell me? There are certainly people who just can;t be compelled, facts or no facts. We hit them over the head with bricks and put them in cages..shit like that.

If I had to choose between the sickly secular humanistic morality many atheists sell, or the more liberating moral nihilism of Nietzsche I’d accept his all the way.

So..more negative word association?

What is the "sickly secular humanistic morality" ...in your own words? The only thing that makes a morality a secular morality, is that it does not require deference to any nonsense about gods - it can still include them, ofc. The only thing that makes it humanistic..is that it is cheifly concerned with the acts and consequences of human lives and decisions. What else would a human morality or deontology concern?

Since moral realism concerns moral facts, not god facts...........any coherent realist morality will be conceptually secular by default. It's going to tip-toe at least right up to the line of humanism as well..for similar reasons. Ultimately, this is why secular moral realism is so well represented in academia. The contention that there are moral facts will invariably swirl to the conclusion that..by definition..if there are moral facts, they would -be- facts, regardless of whether some other fact (like a god fact)..was or was not a fact.