(January 28, 2019 at 4:58 pm)Acrobat Wrote: You asked for a moral aim or goal.
No, that is utterly dishonest. You said there was "a reality that posses moral purpose and aims" and I asked for a moral aim or goal provide by a reality.
Quote:I gave you one, that one ought to do good. One ought not do what is bad.
It doesn’t matter how you define good, if one recognize what is good, he recognizes that he ought to do it, if one recognize what’s bad he recognizes he ought not to do it.
[quote]
That is a tautology at best and conveys nothing useful.
[quote]
Nazis may have been deluded as to the evil of the holocaust, but there belief that it was morally good is false. Everyone outside of someone delusional or a sociopath can recognizes this.
If there s something that everybody agrees on then all that tells you is that there is a unanimous opinion on the subject. It does NOT mean that reality is dictating a moral directive; it means that humans generally agree on a particular act being moral or not. The universe doesn't care and will not act in any way to punish somebody who has a different opinion.
Quote:In fact you yourself said morality isn’t reducible to personal opinion, indicating it’s rational.
That is also dishonest. I objected to morality being "reducible to the decorative frills of personal opinion, like your taste in food or movies". There is a subjective component but reason is a major component as well.
Quote:And all morality is built on this fundamental truth, than one ought do what is good, ought not do what is bad. All religious people can agree that this is true, but atheists like yourself can’t right?
Your statement is far too trivial to be useful in any way at all. Equating "moral" and "good" is pointless without defining what is good and that depends on what your goals are. Once we agree on the goal then we can use the facts of reality to evaluate which actions move us closer to that goal or further from that goal. Setting the goal IS subjective and not defined by the universe/reality/whatever.
