Do you wish there's a god?

[pocaracas]

I see.... you're on the objective train...
ok... then I'm going to have to ask you to define "objective" as it pertains to morality.

I'll keep it simple: Experienced/Observed as external to us.

How do social aspects fit into this simple definition?

From my point of view, morality is something that arises of the social group. It seems objective because it is shared by the majority (or all) the elements of the group. However, I don't think that morality is independent of the group. In the absence of the group, morality is meaningless.

When we acknowledge the immorality of the holocaust. When we say the holocaust is immoral, what we’re not saying is that it’s immoral because our social group considers it immoral. If one day our social group feels it’s the right thing to do, it would remain immoral to us, and our social group would be delusional, like a social group who became holocaust deniers.

When we acknowledge the holocaust is immoral, what we’re not acknowledging is something internal to us or our social group, such as I’m not saying the holocaust is immoral because of how it makes me feel, or because of my societies personal opinion. If we were to call the the Nazi’s immoral, we’re not saying what they did is wrong, only because us american’s are of the opinion that it’s wrong.

We are acknowledging and claiming an objective truth, that it’s wrong regardless of what germans or american’s think.

Secondly, any of us may recognize immorality in our social groups, just as we might recognize lies or delusions in our social groups. In additions, moral perceptions have been observed in infants and toddlers, hence casting doubt on the suggestion that social groups are needed to form moral views.

So... why do you say it's an objective truth?
How did you determine that it's objective, like the color yellow?

You recognize it as something shared by many individuals in different social groups, yes... but how does the leap in logic sees this "immorality of the holocaust" as something external to any and all individuals in all the human social groups?


That moral perceptions have been observed in toddlers and infants is no surprise to me. Heck, they've been observed in many other animal species!!
But on those toddlers, why would you assume that such moral traits to be casting doubt on the suggestion that they arise from the social group? Toddlers are humans, and it is to be expected that some traits are embedded in the genetic makeup. The oldest traits, those that we also observe in other animals should be found there.

I try to understand why you're wrong.

Then we should have a good conversation!

I never said you denied anything...
I left almost explicit that you add an extra layer of what I called magic. A layer that I consider to be unnecessary and unevidenced.

I don’t know what you mean by magic, I’m merely pointing out that reality possess elements like a moral order. I don’t consider the existence of such a reality, to be magical.

And I'm saying that those "elements" are probably simply patterns that humanity has ascribed to certain aspects of reality... not necessarily things underlying reality.
Given these two possibilities, I ask how can we determine if it's one or the other?

Do you think the group that made the Holocaust thought it was right? It clearly wasn't a single individual with his own subjective set of morals.

The group that thought the holocaust was right, operated as truth denier, like holocaust deniers, and 9/11 truthers, not as people who had a different taste in fashion, or other subjective preferences. The Nazi’s relied on lies, delusions like scapegoating, to believe what they were doing was right. If it was just a matter of subjective opinions, or tastes, than such like delusions and lies would not have been needed to do what they did.

Lies?... Do you think people who believe that the Earth is flat are lying?
Maybe they have a warped perception of reality, relative to the common human, but I don't think they'd be lying.
I think with nazis it was just an extension of the "us vs them" innate way of thinking that we have in our tribal brains.

Do you think most of the world of antiquity thought it was right to have slaves?

I think much of antiquity had varying views on slavery. Some viewed it as wrong, but necessary. And not all forms of slavery are equal. American slavery relied on the delusional belief, that blacks were less than human to justify it.

Again, us vs them.... they are worth less than us and so they can be exploited.
This is immoral to us, nowadays, but was mostly moral on those societies, even if some individuals found it immoral.
This is one area where the subjectivity of morality appears more clearly, I think.

Have I said anything that remotely hints at a desire on my part to not believe? Where am I denying my experiences of reality? What excuses am I making?

So far, I’ll keep my judgement neutral when it comes to you.