(August 13, 2019 at 11:04 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: The possible worlds examples from earlier.
In one world, there is holocaust god
In another world, there is buddy god
In both worlds god has god-ness, but if good-ness is a synonym for god-ness, in holocaust gods world the holocaust is good, where’s in buddy gods world it is bad.
Whatever the god of your world happens to be, is the shape of goodness. Murder god makes murder good, anti murder god makes murder bad. There’s nothing about -murder- that’s good or bad.
If, however, goodness is it’s own thing, then we can make a determination of goodness across all possible worlds, and even in reference to the gods of possible worlds. If there is some specific and objective standard, then there’s something about murder that would make it bad in both worlds. This is the minimum bar for objectivity, for realism.
Such is the case for intuitionist arguments. Non natural realism. The idea that we directly apprehend good or bad....and that any being with functional moral agency could stand in the presence of murder god, and know that it was bad, regardless of whether or not it was a god.
The trouble is that the faithful hear “immaterial” or “non natural” and cream their pants. Thinking it gives them some warrant that it doesn’t. By definition, all forms of realism require a standard apart from something’s self to establish its/their moral nature. There are no exceptions, not even for a god.
Ok, I got you now. Yep, I agree.
