Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

Basing a moral system on the specifics of -any- subject, including god, is the definition of moral subjectivism.  It doesn't matter what you think....because that's a fact...and I think we've already covered this.

I don't know where you got this definition from. You have divine command theory in the literature, you know. This theory is considered absolutist, given that, as I said before, scripture is unchanging and eternal.

Scripture won't change?  Okay...but that's irrelevant.  I may always think that vanilla is better than chocolate, too.  Doesn't mean that it is.  

I see with my eyes, not a god...but lets run with it.  Lets imagine that it;s god "making us see".  Let's imagine that there's a switch in every human being that can utterly disable our moral agency.  If that switch is in the off position, and fucking allah comes around and flips it on, does that mean that a rape suddenly became bad?  Or was it already bad, and you just didn't see it?  I think that it would have to be the latter.  Nothing about the rape changed, the only thing that changed was whether or not I had eyes to see.

So..no, that's not the bad-making property of rape, for example.  Rapes are bad regardless of whether I can see them, and they would be bad even if I couldn't see them, or see them as bad.  Again, moral realist. 

The matter of god suddenly intervening and changing rape from bad to good just doesn't happen, think of that as an empirical fact of some type. It's just like saying why should one trust gravity when in any second an alien supernatural entity can switch the gravity button off. Or why should I cross the road if traffic lights are green/no traffic considering the possibility of an invisible bus accelerating at 200 mph while I'm crossing. These are all empty hypothetical scenarios, what we really have is an unchanging scripture that instructs one not to rape, how hard can that be?

I agree there might be a "bad-making property" about rape that makes it inherently repugnant/immoral, but it's a very basic example. And there philosophical positions that rationalize that too, such as the utilitarian one I just mentioned. If moral realism is solid regarding rape, I don't see how it would work in less obvious cases.

That's fine...that's fine.  You are certainly free to believe that moral facts won't get me far on issues, just as you are free to reject moral facts.  I think they will..I think that they're the only way to get anywhere in a moral system based on valid inferences.  

I already said that these so called moral facts, aside from obvious issues such as rape, do beg the question. Why would anything have an objective moral tag? Even in the case of rape, I would say that, with stone cold rigor, it would be hard to squeeze a bad making property out of the act, if the rapist sadly silences the victim and prevents any manifestation of pain/discomfort, or even make the experience consensual/pleasant with some doses of drugs, nothing at the scene tells there is something bad happening.

What facts, if any, would you refer to when determining whether (or why) infidelity is bad?

It's bad because it's .. infidel I think? Regarding facts, I wouldn't go farther than the husband's reaction when he catches his partner in the act, and how simple his moral system suddenly becomes when witnessing the tragedy unfold.

The question of your preferences is just max irony considering your moral subjectivism.  I don't care which you prefer, and didn't ask.  At issue was whether or not order following was a moral system.  It isn't.  You might prefer it, but that won't make it a moral system.

If anything were wrong in singer's utilitarian formulation, it's probably the circumstance.  As in it would be an awfully shitty world we lived in if the conditions of his argument were met.  Where there's a necessity to do bad, and that specific bad, so that a greater good might follow.  Thankfully, there's still enough room on this rock for it to be a hypothetical...though starving people make these sorts of calculations with some regularity.

Springer's conditions might actually be met in the future, namely regarding the issue of eugenics. If the world population really reaches unbearable levels, we might see utilitarian policies enforced to reduce the useless portions of populations, the ultimate goal being the greater good.

So if one finds the slightest trouble dismissing Springer's arguments in his moral system, he might as well just toss the whole system.

Following orders may not be a sound moral system per se, but I think it's a starting point regarding the really obvious issues : unlawful killing, rape, etc. I don't think ruling out unlawful killing should be based on any moral system that could be brought in question, the don't kill imperative is more than enough, at it squares well with our inherent moral sense.

You needed a god for that?

I didn't, I never claimed I did. And if you think that invalidates my position, you didn't understand it.

---

Does Islam teach the same distinction between consensual/immoral that you are advancing right now? It doesn't.

It does, pal. Read the first verses of An-Nur chapter. Any sexual act outside of marriage is condemned obviously, and that's true with christianity/judaism too I think.

---

But I do not regard such killings as justified. They are wrong. But show me a piece of scripture from the Quran that expressly forbids such a murder. There isn't one. Sadly so,

You could've just asked instead of asserting :
[81:8/81:9] And when the girl [who was] buried alive is asked. For what sin she was killed

Burying girls alive was the traditional way of conducting honor killings back then, it's something well-known Islam forbade this stuff in its earliest days.