Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

You're just confusing normative ethics with metaethics. This is in essence the mistake that G.E.Moore was keen to point out and labelled 'the naturalistic fallacy'. Basically, it involves confusing what morality tells us to do and be (normative ethics) with what morality is, in itself.

This is also what I've been trying to do throughout this thread.

But, anyway, rather than pointing out your fallacious inferences I'll just point out that a concept can't issue an instruction, much less an instruction that has inescapable rational authority. So your view is, er, silly.

Morality has to be something that issues instructions, because that's what it does. And it has to be something capable of lending those instructions inescapable rational authority, because that's what moral instructions have.

You can keep repeating the same statement ad nauseum - doesn't make it true. You are the one who fails to understand that everyone here - including Simplexity - is addressing the metaphysical nature of morality. And not only that, they are justifying its metaphysical nature by giving suitable reasons - all of which you have failed to address.

Morality is a system of ideas. It is a concept formed of a collection of concepts. That is - at the core - the nature of its existence. It does not issue instructions - it contains them. It does not act and is not an agent in any form or manner. And there is no reason for it to be issued from an inescapable rational authority.

Your mistake - a most abysmally foolish mistake - is to regard a form of speech literally. The idea that morality instructs is just a fancier way of saying "as per the instructions contained within a particular morality". It does not confer any sort of agency unto the concept itself and your continued insistence on how "morality has to be something that instructs" simply demonstrates your failure to understand this simple semantic concept.

YOu say morality 'contains' instructions. So, er, morality is - in part anyway - composed of instructions. (do you see how annoying this is for me - I say 'morality instructs' or 'morality is composed of instructions' and the response is 'no it doesn't.....it instructs'. You can't challenge my premise by affirming it!!)

Now, instructions require an instructor. If you know of a way in which an instruction can exist - and be a genuine, real instruction and not just an apparent one - without it having to have been originated by an agent of some kind, I'm all ears. But until or unless you can do this, instructions require an instructor: an agent of some kind. (There is, after all, no doubt that this is one way in which an instruction can come into being).

If there is no instructor then all we have is the appearance of instructions.

Talk about 'ideas' all you want. Ideas don't instruct. And morality is not an idea. It is something we have an idea 'of'. It is not itself an idea. The only thing that is an idea is an idea. A chair is not an idea. But it is something we have an idea of. A horse is not an idea, but it is something we have an idea of. A god is not an idea, but it is something we have an idea of. And so on and so on.

Morality is NOT an idea anymore than a chair is. Only someone who is fundamentally confused would think otherwise.

We have an idea of morality. And that idea is of something that instructs, favours etc, and instructs and favours in a way that is rationally authoritative. That's the idea. And that idea will only have something answering to it in reality if there really are external instructions that are inescapable rationally authoritative. And that requires the existence of a god and an afterlife.

Talk about the idea all you want. Talk about how it has evolved, etc. you're not talking about morality until you talk about what the idea is of. And the idea is of external instructions that have inescapable rational authority.

I am going to keep on saying this until someone gives me reason to think otherwise. So far all you've done is continue confusing morality for the idea of morality, which is......stupid.