Morality

[The Grand Nudger]

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 shouldn't have to quote you.  

I appreciate that you've shared your thoughts on whether or not the holocaust is intrinsically bad or good, but what am I supposed to do with that?  We already knew that you and I don't share our moral position or system.  I've explained how a natural or non natural realist might end up making that statement.  

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.

It may be in your moral system, but your moral system isn't the sum total of all moral systems, so...?

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.  

What is there to acknowledge?  You have a moral system.  In your moral system the holocaust is neither good nor bad intrinsically, and moral facts are evaluative propositions.

So what?  

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.

-again..the fundamental and defining difference between moral relaism and moral relativism is that moral realism posits the existence of moral facts of a matter x.  These facts, and not facts about a culture and it;s beliefs, are the facts to which realist refer.  

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

Because they are, regardless of the ontological status of morality.

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

We've already established that you have faulty perception.

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.

If you say so, Heather.

Take some time, work out exactly what your objection to moral realism is, and when you can clearly articulate that, I'll head back around to the thread.