Atheism and morality

[genkaus]

YOu have not 'shown' that instructions can exist without an instructor!

Ofcourse, I have.

Do you draw no distinction between an apparent instruction and a real one?

Ofcourse I do. All apparent instructions are real instruction, but all real instructions are not apparent instructions.

Taking oneself to be instructed to do something and actually being instructed to do something are two different things.

Yes. There is an issuer in one case and none in the other. The instruction is real in both.

I tell you to shut the window. YOu think I told you to shut the door and duly shut the door. I did not instruct you to shut the door. YOu were not following an actual instruction. You mistakenly believed yourself to be instructed to shut the door. You were not.

And both instructions "shut the door" and "shut the window" actually exist. The instruction I followed was a real and actual instruction. That it was not the instruction that you actually issued doesn't change that.

Similarly, if you see the pebbles on the beach you may believe yourself to be being told to get off the beach. YOu may even get off the beach on the basis of that belief. However, you were NOT being told to get off the beach.

No, I was not being TOLD. But the instruction existed nonetheless. It existed because I chose to perceive it as such.

Not everything that appears to be an instruction is an instruction. The fact you believe something to be an instruction doesn't make it so. Whether it is an instruction or not is a function of how it came about, not what you believe about it.

Actually, that is precisely how it works. That I believe it to be an instruction, makes it an instruction. Whether it is an instruction or not is a matter of how we perceive it, not how it came about.

Unless you refuse to distinguish between apparent instructions and real instructions (and it seems you do) these points should be obvious.

I do distinguish between them. What I don't do is accept your premise that apparent instructions aren't real Scotsmen - I mean, instructions.

You then say that 'we' are the instructors.

No, I simply say that we can. Not that we are.

I keep addressing this point again and again and again. Yes, we can instruct and favour. We can see the apparent (but not real) instruction on the beach and instruct ourselves to follow it. And that's now a real instruction (albeit one based on a mistaken belief).

So you do accept that its a real instruction?

Can morality consist in our instructions? No, because - for the umpteenth time - moral instructions have inescapable rational authority. they're not just instructions. They're instructions that have inescapable rational authority. Tattoo that on the inside of your eyelids so that I don't have to keep repeating it! And one more time: our instructions don't have inescapable rational authority!!

And for the umpteenth time, there is no reason for moral instructions to have inescapable rational authority. They're not instructions that have inescapable rational authority. Tattoo that on the inside of your eyelids so that I don't have to keep repeating it. There is no reason for moral instructions to have inescapable rational authority. And one more time: therefore our instructions can just as easily be moral instructions.

Satisfying the instructional nature of morality is a necessary condition on any plausible analysis of morality. But it is not sufficient. YOu have to satisfy other conditions too!

There are no other conditions. If its instructional in nature, then its a morality. That is the only premise that has actually been accepted - that it is instructional in nature. All the rest are simply things that you've been trying to make stick and failing miserably.