Morality

[The Grand Nudger]

IOW you made a misleading claim about your moral positions.  You would have to retain -some- of your christian beliefs, such as the belief in a god.  Well, that actually doesn't prevent your moral positions from being secular either...but I think that you're trying to walk this one back...so we'll go with the new line.  

No, I haven’t walked anything back. Subscribing to platonic theism, doesn’t require me to subscribe to Christian beliefs as well.

-woosh.

Moral facts are incapable of setting deontological borders, they just don't possess that ability any more than they possess the agency required to effect such a thing.  They're just true statements with a moral import.  

I'll only go over this one more time..and then I'll expect you to understand moving forward.  In order to derive an ought..a deontological border..from an is, a moral fact..at least one evaluative premise must be supplied.  This is  non negotiable.  This is the is-ought distinction.  We supply these premises.  We don't find them out there in the way that we find those moral facts to which we refer*.  

I’m not sure how you’re  resolving the is/ought problem, you seem to sneakily shift from a set of factual proposition such as x is “harmful”, to evaluative proposition, x is morally bad, and then stating the evaluative proposition is a fact. And appear oblivious as to why this is a problem.

What do you mean sneakily?  I keep telling you that the is ought distinction flatly states that we require at least one evaluative premise derive an ought from an is - and that we seek to supply these premises, and do supply these premises.  

You're not a moral realist.  You don't refer to moral facts, you refer to purported god facts.  I don't know why everything would be permissible just because fairies aren't watching you piss. 

No the fairies usually close their eyes when I’m peeing.

If there’s nothing truly right or wrong about anything, than everything is permissible.

Who said there wasn't anything truly right or wrong about anything?  I only posited a situation in which there were no fairies.  If this, to you, suggests a situation in which nothing is truly right or wrong...from the perspective of a moral realist, that's something that requires a bit of an explanation, lol.  

Obviously, if the moral structure that you appeal to is god fact based rather than moral fact based then the absence of a god would hollow out your moral system.  Since mine isn;t god fact based...it won;t have that effect on me.  

No, I’m pointing out the one you’re  trying to sell me in place of it is hallow, built with straws.

What am I trying to sell you?  Moral realism?  

Like I said, some people can't be compelled.  We have bricks and cages for people like that...and it sounds like you'd need one..if you ever lost your faith.

This is perhaps the most interesting thing you’ve said. I only indicated a sort of nihilistic moral outlook that I would hold, I didn’t really say much about how I’d behave. So clearly the idea of people holding such a nihilistic moral outlook appear to you as sociopaths. The sort of people we should consider putting in bricks and cages. And I’m somewhat in agreement with you that we should be worried about people who hold such views, luckily for you I don’t.

Yes, lucky for me you don't....but only lucky so long as you remain faithful......and that's been declining of late, lol.

But notice one thing you haven’t done? You at no point, have ever indicated why such beliefs are false. Nothing you said negates this nihilistic position. Yet, you seem aware that both this nihilistic position and moral realism can’t be true. All you’ve ever managed to say is that you probably couldn’t pursued them to join your team, but you haven’t been able to argue that their beliefs are false.

Is there some specific objection to moral realism that you think is compelling, coming from the nihilist camp, that we haven't already discussed?