Morality

[Brian37]

The difference I asked you about, was what difference the addition or removal of a supernatural world made to my statement.  

You keep assigning concepts and beliefs to me that I’ve never claimed to hold, nor do I even know what you mean by the term “supernatural world”, or like when you made up the term “moral spiritualism”. You should perhaps try and stick with things I’ve said, the beliefs I indicated I hold, and use them.

I did say that reality possesses moral aims, intrinsic meaning, sort of like a novel does. The removal of such a transcend moral reality removes the ought. That I ought not do things that are bad, that I ought to do things that are good, I have no binding obligation to either.

As result the holocaust is not intrinsically bad or good. It’s just an event that happened in history that took the  lives of millions.

There’s no goal to which any fact is oriented too, so  good and bad can not be facts.

I already explained this to you, and there won't be a fourth time..nor will I be quoting myself again.  

I explained to you numerous times why calling the holocaust bad is an evaluative proposition. I even broke it down for you, as simple as I could. Bad is a value judgement. Value judgements are evaluative propositions. Holocaust is bad is an evaluative propositions.

And you keep refusing to acknowledge this, there’s no real argument you can or have made to refute this, because it should be obvious to any reasonable person why value judgements, like the holocaust is bad, are evaluative propositions.  

Realist - Holocaust is wrong.
Relativist - Culture X believes that Holocaust is wrong, and people in this culture believe that their cultural pronouncements are true.

The relativist statement indicates where the value judgement comes from, i.e from his culture, while you have  yet to disclose where your come from, in fact you deny it’s a value judgement.

But you did previously  indicate that moral aims and oughts are a human construct, ones we make.

So it seems to me that your moral judgement, of the holocaust being bad, is because “we” x believes the holocaust is bad.

You’re just a walking contradiction, your actual views are indistinguishable from relativism, and it just seems that you don’t like that label, so you dress it up as something else. You’re  like those atheists on surveys, who indicate that they also believe in god.

You’re just operating on tons of cognitive dissonance, because a part of you wants to refuse to be a moral relativist, while another part of you can’t go far enough to support your desire for moral realism, so you keep contradicting yourself, in ways that are perhaps more obvious to others here than you think.

^^^^^^ In the end your goal is to defend, at least in your own mind, that a magical sky wizard is the root of human morality.

So it does not matter how many points you want to claim skeptics are contradicting themselves on. 

If your belief is that a super cognition is the creator of human morality, before you can argue what morality is, you have to prove that your God exists.

Cant put the cart before the horse.