(January 31, 2019 at 7:52 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I'm not going to humor you for another post unless this becomes a two way relationship. Confront the fact that you made a statement in ignorance, knowing nothing about me, my morality, secularism, or moral realism.
I'll say this much, I didn't realize that many moral realist, particularly the non-theistic ones, reject teleological components to reality, and attempt to make their moral objectivism work absent of this. I know Sam Harris tried to do something along those line, but I didn't realize that this was the same for others non-theistic supporters of moral realism. So thanks for that.
To your credit, I think you defended your non-teleological/non-platonic, etc.. moral realism as best as any of them could possibly could. None of them likely have ever taken its various components apart as you did, but once we've put all the pieces on the table, we can see that they don't actually fit as well as you thought they would, that it falls apart.
You should read After Virtue, it gives a compelling, and a currently unrefuted case how this sort of incoherency developed in moral thought, particularly among those trying to develop a morality absent of teleological assumptions.
I predicated it was going to fail, I kind of had an idea of what your answers to my questions would look like, I just wanted you to provide those answer bit by bit, so that by the end you'd have no wiggle room, no easy way to wiggle yourself out, and accuse me of strawmanning you.
I wanted to leave you with as little of a defense otherwise, and I'm proud that I succeeded.
