Morality

[Brian37]

You mean I don't believe in such a -spiritual- reality.  No, I don't.  I'm a moral realist, not a moral spiritualist.  

I don’t know what moral spiritualism is, since this appears to be a term you invented, since it didn’t correspond to any moral theories I could find online. I’m a moral realist. Our differences is in regards to the ontology of morality here.

Here's what I think. I think you should stop looking for ways that moral realism is somehow incoherent or contradictory. It's simply not. It may be wrong, that case can always be made, but it's coherence is not novel or based upon any novel thing.

Why would i stop focusing on incoherency and contradictions of the moral realism you’re advocating for? That the central focus, of what I am arguing about.

There is a spiritual world.
If x is bad
-and if y contains x
-and if we want to avoid the bad
Then we should not do y.

There is no spiritual world.
If x is bad
-and if y contains x
-and if we want to avoid the bad
Then we should not do y.

Can you identify any moral or deontological difference in the statements above on account of the empirical fact of a spiritual worlds existence being posited in either direction?

The problem with your equation, is that it can just as easily apply to moral subjectivism, moral relativism, or moral realism mines or yours. So yes there is no differences, across the moral perspectives.

But the point of my arguments is exactly about the distinctions, that your equation doesn’t account for, which is about the nature of x is bad. The ontology of badness or goodness.

The relativist, the subjectivist, as well as I can agree that x is bad, is an evaluative proposition. You on the other hand deny it’s an evaluative judgement all together. You refuse to acknowledge that calling the holocaust bad, is attaching a moral judgment to the holocaust, and this is by definition is an evaluative proposition. For you to deny this, is like sayings “It’s raining outside, but I don’t believe it”

The subjectivist would say its personal value judgment we individually attach to x, the relativist would say it’s cultural, social value judgment we attach to x. And it seems to me that your own views are along the lines of relativist here. You haven’t particularly made any real distinction between moral relativism, and the moral realism you seem to be advocating for, as evident in the equation you settled on, that lacks such a distinction.

^^^^^^ This, this right here is why I hate philosophy. 

Anything can be a philosophy. Economics, politics and religions all can be deemed "philosophies".

And what I have constantly noticed since 01 being on line. Is all of those labels more often than not, get tied to a religion and the apologist is ultimately trying to lead you to their club/deity/god. 

I have long since accepted that all 7 billion of us are the same species, and our "differences" are human invented constructs that do not change that fact that we are the same species. 

It does not take a "philosophy" to know you want to be safe and free from harm. It does not take a "philosophy" to know you want food and shelter and a means to survive.

The argument between humans is how to go about doing those things. But that does not change we are still the same species.