Deconversion and some doubts

[vulcanlogician]

A more accurate rendition of the question, would be to ask whether if Good did not exist would rape be morally okay?

But Good exists, and we both agree it does. So the matter is settled, and we agree on that.

But this intelligent, personal supra-cosmic force (the thing you call "God") sounds a little bit fabricated to me.

But goodness or the Good seems plenty realistic, and very plausible. But the Good isn't physical. It's metaphysical.

But to me, the Good isn't some kind of "magic" or necessarily related to a divine nonphysical being because it isn't physical.

The truth of the Pythagorean theorem is metaphysical. It is a truth statement about right triangles. But people are free to ignore this truth and misunderstand right triangles. But those who DO understand the theorem will regard right triangles in a particular way. They will understand them better.

Likewise, those who understand the Good will act in a certain way. Because they understand (like the principles of a right triangle) that their actions can be correct or incorrect. Someone who knows the Pythagorean theorem can give you precise measurements of a triangle. But he could also (if he wished) lie to you and tell you the wrong facts about the triangle.

Same thing with a moral realist. A moral realist understands "the right triangle of human suffering"... and has calculated the truth... and his actions reflect his understanding. You want to say there is no OUGHT from understanding this IS.

BUT THERE IS.

Hume is one of my favorite thinkers but he is WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY too skeptical. If your house is on fire, you ought to gather your loved ones and leave it. Hume says, "How do you arrive at that 'ought'? Why don't you stay in the house and burn?" We get oughts from is-es all the time. Just like we know that effects have causes. If we want to get super skeptical like Hume, we can point out that there are unfounded assumptions at work. And such skepticism is a good intellectual exercise. But at the end of the day, Hume has not proven that the laws of cause and effect are illusory. Nor has he proven that you can't get an ought from an is. He is just asking why we assume that we can. It's hard to answer his query because it's a good question. But Hume doesn't falsify moral realism. He just presents it with a challenge,

I'm up to the challenge. But (also) when I'm making moral decisions, I ignore Hume's radical skepticism. Because Hume has challenged moral realism... not refuted it.