Atheism and morality

[genkaus]

No, it is nonsense so of course I can't understand it. I understand it to be nonsense. You know it is nonsense as well, at least I hope you do.

If you consider everything beyond your comprehension as nonsensical, then the whole world must seem that way to you.

YOu need to challenge one of the premises of my argument. One of those was that morality instructs. I take it that the above is your attempt to challenge it. But you can't challenge a premisethat morality instructs by saying 'no it doesn't....it instructs'.

Challenge it? I've denied it. I'm denying it right now. Giving instructions is a job for conscious entities and morality - by definition - is not a conscious entity.

And since you've failed so spectacularly to comprehend the given argument - it is not a challenge to your premise of "morality instructs", it is a denial of your premise that "morality is an being". Morality is a concept - therefore not a being.

that way to you.

You accept that morality instructs. You talked later about a code of 'shoulds'. Use 'should' if you like - but that's just another way of acknowledging that morality consists, in part anyway, in instructions to do and not do things.
So, once again, you accept that morality instructs.

No, I don't. How many times do I have to repeat it? Let me say it loud and clear.

I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT MORALITY INSTRUCTS. MORALITY DOES NOT INSTRUCT. MORALITY CONTAINS INSTRUCTIONS BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT INSTRUCTS.

Once again, using your own analogy, even if a map were to contain directions to a hidden treasure, that still wouldn't mean that the map guides. The map does not guide and morality does not instruct.

It is no good saying 'but the instructions come from us' or 'we confer the instructions'. For you are still acknowledging the instructing nature of morality, it is just that now you are trying to account for it (rather than deny it) by attributing those instructions to ourselves.

Oh, but I am denying it. Try and get that through your head.

Now, that falls foul of another of my assumptions about morality, namely that its instructions are inescapably rationally authoritative.

Another ridiculous statement which is demonstrably false. All known moralities contain instructions from philosophers who are most certainly not inescapably rationally authoritative.

So, you actually accept my premise that morality instructs.

I don't.

And you accept, it seems, that instructions need to come from an agency of some sort.

Yes, human agents. Always human agents.

So, there is actually only one way you can avoid my conclusion. And that is to challenge my premise that moral instructions are instructions that are inescapably rationally authoritative.

Too easily denied. In fact, it has been denied. Many times over.

---

The claim that 'morality is a concept' is nonsense. It is like saying 'time is cheese'. It doesn't make sense.

Morality is something we have a concept of. And we have a concept of a concept. But the only thing that 'is' a concept is a concept.

He doesn't know what he's saying, but he isn't letting that stop him.

Are you drunk or simply uneducated?

A concept is an idea - something formed in the mind. Look up the definition.

Morality is a system of ideas - a code produced by a mind. It is a concept by definition.

---

Asking me why morality can't be a concept is like asking me why a triangle can't have four sides. Because it isn't a concept, is my answer. Concepts are concepts. Then there are the things conceived - those are the things we have concepts of. We have a concept of time, of space, of morality, of unicorns, of father Christmas, of a god, and so on and so on.

Jeez, get a dictionary dude.

Things that you conceive of in your mind are concepts. Anything conceived by your mind - that does not have an existence independent of your mind - is, by definition, a concept.

Therefore, space and time are not concepts (though we do have concepts about them) and morality, unicorns, Santa Claus and god are concepts. That you do not recognize this simply means that your concepts regarding these concepts are skewed.

---

Well, he understands - or seems to - that beliefs always have objects (things they are 'about'). And he understands that a belief cannot have itself as an object. So, what a belief is about, and the belief itself, are different. This much he seems - seems - to grasp. So he gets one star. But, inexplicably, he can't then grasp that this means moral beliefs must be about something- they must have an object. And that their object is, well, morality. And that this means that morality and the belief are different. This he does not seem capable of grasping. I can only conclude that he is either some kind of cretin or he does not like where grasping it would lead.

The failure of comprehension is yours. The object of a belief need not be a physical or tangible object, it can be another belief or a concept.

For example, your belief about morality is that it is an agent. My belief about your belief is that it is bullshit. Similarly, morality is a belief - or, if you will, a concept - about how a person should act. Therefore, morality is a belief and moral beliefs, i.e., beliefs about morality, are beliefs about another belief. It cannot be explained in a simpler manner.

---

A moral belief is a belief such as that 'Xing is wrong' or 'Xing is right'. To believe an act is wrong is one and the same as believing it to be immoral. That's a moral belief.

If one believes an act to be wrong, the 'wrongness' can't be the belief, for reasons just given. One has a belief that the act has wrongness. The wrongness and the belief are different. What is the wrongness? What is one believing about an act when one believes it to be wrong? No good saying that one believes the act to be harmful or some such, for then all one is saying is that one believes 'harmful acts' to be wrong. And we are non the wiser about what this 'wrongness' is, only a bit wiser about the kind of things that give rise to its presence.

So what is the wrongness? Well, first the wrongness is an instruction not to do the act in question. In other words, part of what we mean when we say 'that act is wrong' is 'that act is one you are instructed not to perform'. Second, the instruction is one that is inescapably rationally authoritative. So another thing we mean is 'and so you have reason not to perform it'.

So, and I really don't know why I bother doing this as it is just going to be ignored, part of what we believe when we believe an act to be wrong is that the act is a) instructed not to be done and b) the instruction creates a reason not to perform it.

I have then reasoned that there would need to exist a god and an afterlife for there to exist instructions of that kind. And thus for any moral belief to be 'true' there would need to exist a god and an afterlife.

Try and read this slowly so as to understand where you start making your mistake.

Moral belief is a belief like "this act is wrong" - that's fine.

The wrongness of the act is not the same belief - that's also correct. Its another belief.

You ask what "wrongness" means. Consider the word carefully. The answer is in there. The word "wrong" (in this context) is an adjective used to describe the moral nature of an act. Wrongness is a moral quality. A precise analogy would be how "red" would describe the visual nature of an apple and "redness" would be a visual quality. The key difference here is that unlike color, the moral nature of an act is NOT A PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTE. It cannot be perceived by any of your senses. It exists in your mind. It has no independent existence. Which means it is a CONCEPTUAL ATTRIBUTE. Which means wrongness is a belief, a concept and your moral belief about it is another belief.

Moving on, the only thing the term "wrongness" implies is "this act you were instructed not to perform". That is all. It says nothing about the nature of the instruction or the instructor. It does not imply that the instruction is rational or authoritative or inescapable. The instruction itself does not create a reason to follow it. That has to be justified independently.

And with that, the rest of your argument falls apart.